1 1

2

3

4



# ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE 5



# PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL WORKER 6



# PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS 7

RIN 2070

- AJ22 8

Docket: EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2011

- 0184 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Prepared by 25

26

BIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION 27

OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS 28

29

30

31

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 32

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 33

Washington, DC 20460 34

35

36

372 383 

## Table of Contents 39

40

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 1 41

Chapter 1. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 7 42

1.1 Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 7 43

1.2 Problem Statement

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 8 44

1.2.1 Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure

................................ ................................ ......................... 9 45

1.2.2 Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure

................................ ................................ .................... 12 46

1.2.3 Market Failure

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13 47

1.3 Affected Communities

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 15 48

1.3.1 Agricultural Employees

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 15 49

1.3.2 Regulated Entities

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 16 50

1.4 Overview of Proposed Regulation

................................ ................................ .............................. 17 51

1.4.1 Need for Federal Regulation

................................ ................................ ............................... 18 52

1.4.2 Statutory Authority

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 19 53

Chapte r 2. Regulatory Options for Amending the WPS

................................ ................................ ............. 20 54

2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety

................................ ......................... 21 55

2.1.1 Non

- regulatory Approaches

................................ ................................ ................................ 21 56

2.1.2 Regulatory Approaches

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 22 57

2.2 Options to Inform Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers

................................ ............... 23 58

2.2.1 Pesticide Safety Training Options

................................ ................................ ....................... 23 59

2.2.2 Hazard Communication Options

................................ ................................ ......................... 32 60

2.2.3 Notification Options

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 35 61

2.3 Op tions to Protect Workers and Pesticide Handlers

................................ ................................ .. 43 62

2.3.1 Minimum Age Options

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 43 63

2.3.2 Options for Entry Restrictions

................................ ................................ ............................. 44 64

2.3.3 Options for Personal Protective Equipment

................................ ................................ ....... 48 65

2.4 Options to Mitigate the Effects of Pesticide Exposure

................................ ............................... 50 66

2.4.1 Decontamination Supply Options

................................ ................................ ....................... 50 67

2.4.2 Options for Emergency Response

................................ ................................ ....................... 52 68

Chapter 3. Cost Analysis, Regulatory Options

................................ ................................ ............................ 55 69

3.1 Overview

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 55 704 3.2. Regional Groupings

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 56 71

3.3 Cost of Potential Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 58 72

3.3.1 General Methodology

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 58 73

3.3.2 General Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 61 74

3.3.3 Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 69 75

3.3.4 Hazard Communication

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 85 76

3.3.5 Notification

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 90 77

3.3.5 Age

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 97 78

3.3.6 Entry

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 101 79

3.3.7 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

................................ ................................ ............... 106 80

3.3.8 Decontamination Supplies

................................ ................................ ................................ 111 81

3.3.9 Emergency Response

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 113 82

Chapter 4. Costs and Benefits of Potential Requirements

................................ ................................ ...... 115 83

4.1 Training Options

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 116 84

4.1.1 TRAI N

- 01 vs TRAIN

- 02: Immediate worker training

................................ ......................... 116 85

4.1.2 TRAIN

- 03 vs 04 and 05 / TRAIN

- 12 vs 13: Frequency of worker and handler tra ining

.... 117 86

4.1.3 TRAIN

- 06 vs 07 / TRAIN

- 14 vs 15 : Expand the content of worker and handler training

. 118 87

4.1.4 TRAIN

- 08 vs 09: Increase worker trainer competency standards

................................ .... 118 88

4.1.5 TRAIN

- 10 vs 11 / TRAIN

- 16 vs 17: Record keeping

................................ .......................... 119 89

4.1.6 TRAIN

- 20 vs 18 and 19: Traini ng verification

................................ ................................ ... 119 90

4.2 Hazard Communication Options

................................ ................................ ............................... 120 91

4.2.1 HAZCOM

- 01: Availability of application

- specific information

................................ .......... 120 92

4.2.2 HAZCOM

- 02 vs 03 and 04: Pesticide

- specific Hazard Communication Materials

............ 121 93

4.2.3 HAZCO M

- 05 vs 06: Recordkeeping and Retention

................................ .......................... 121 94

4.2.4 HAZCOM

- 07: Registrant

- produced crop sheets

................................ ................................ 122 95

4.3 Notification Options

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 122 96

4.3.1 NOTIFY

- 01 vs 02: Posted Notification Timing for Outdoor Production

........................... 122 97

4.3.2 NOTIFY

- 03: Posted Notification Timing

– Enclosed Space Production

............................. 123 98

4.3.3 NOTIFY

- 04 and NOTIFY

- 05 Recordkeeping of Oral Notification

................................ ....... 123 99

4.3.4 NOTIFY

- 06 vs 07: Revise REI warning signs

................................ ................................ ....... 123 100

4.3.4 NOTIFY

- 08 vs 09: Locations of Warning Sign

................................ ................................ .... 124 101

4.3.6 NOTIFY

- 10 vs 11: Notification to workers prior to perfor ming early entry tasks

............. 124 1025 4.3.7 NOTIFY

- 12 vs 13: Record keeping for early entry tasks

................................ .................... 124 103

4.3.8 NOTIFY

- 14: Revise safety display

................................ ................................ ..................... 125 104

4.3.9 NOTIFY

- 15 and 16 vs 17: Number and location of safety displays

................................ .. 125 105

4.3.10 NOTIFY

- 18: Notification by commercial appl icators

................................ ........................ 126 106

4.4 Age Requirement Options

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 126 107

4.4.1 AGE

- 01 vs 02: Minimum age for early entry activities

................................ ..................... 126 108

4.4.2 AGE

- 03 vs AGE

- 04: Establish Minimum Age for Handling Pesticides

.............................. 127 109

4.5 Entry Restriction Optio ns

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 127 110

4.5.1 ENTRY

- 01 and 02: Entry restricted areas

................................ ................................ ......... 127 111

4.5.2 ENTRY

- 03 vs 04 and 05: Duration of Early Entry Activities

................................ .............. 128 112

4.5.3 ENTRY

- 06 vs 07: Cholinesterase Inhibition

................................ ................................ ...... 129 113

4.6 PPE Options

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 129 114

4.6.1 PPE

- 01: Require fit test for handlers using products requiring respirator PPE

............... 129 115

4.6.2 PPE

- 02 and PPE

- 03: Eliminate exceptions from PPE for employees acting under CCAs

. 130 116

4.6.3 PPE

- 04: Standards for closed system exceptions

................................ ............................. 130 117

4.6.4 PPE

- 05: Ren der contaminated PPE unwearable

................................ .............................. 131 118

4.7 Decontamination Supply Options

................................ ................................ ............................. 131 119

4.7.1 SUPPLY

- 01 and SUPPLY

- 02: Decontamination supplies for workers

............................... 131 120

4.7.2 SUPPLY

- 03 vs 04: Decontamination supplies for handlers

................................ .............. 132 121

4.7.3 SUPPLY

- 05 vs 06: Emer gency eye flushing

................................ ................................ ....... 133 122

4.8 Emergency Assistance Options

................................ ................................ ................................ . 133 123

Chapter 5. Costs of Proposed Rule

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 135 124

5.1 General Methodology

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 137 125

5.2 Cost Estimation

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 141 126

5.2.1 Training Component

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 141 127

5.2.2 Hazard Communication and Notification Components

................................ .................... 151 128

5.2.3 Protect Component: Age, Entry, and PPE

................................ ................................ ........ 154 129

5.2.4 Mitigate Component: Decontamination Supplies and Em ergency Assistance

................ 156 130

5.2.5 Total Cost of Proposed Rule

................................ ................................ .............................. 158 131

5.3 Impact on Jobs and Employment

................................ ................................ .............................. 161 132

5.4 Small Business Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 162 133

5.4.1 Industry Profile

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 163 1346 5.4.2 Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost

................................ ................................ ......... 165 135

Chapter 6. Benefits of Proposed Rule

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 167 136

6.1. Which Benefits Can Be Quantified

................................ ................................ ............................ 168 137

6.2. Who is at Risk?

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 169 138

6.2.1. Workers & Handlers in Agriculture

................................ ................................ ................... 169 139

6.2.2. Children and families

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 169 140

6. 3. What are the Risks? Pesticide Risks to Workers, Handlers, and Families

................................ . 172 141

6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Effects

................................ ................................ ............................. 172 142

6.3.2. Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families

................................ 173 143

6.4. Non

- Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

................................ .. 177 144

6.5. Quantified Benefit of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents

................................ ............ 177 145

6.5.1. Methodology a nd Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 178 146

6.5.2. Underreporting of worker/handler incidents

................................ ................................ ... 179 147

6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided

................................ ................................ .............................. 184 148

6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided

................................ ................................ ............................... 187 149

6.6. What are the Risks? Chronic Pesticide Exposure and Risks to Workers and Handlers

............. 198 150

6.6.1. Cancer Risks

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 201 151

6.6.2. Non

- Cancer Health Effects

................................ ................................ ................................ 204 152

6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks

................................ ................................ .......... 206 153

6.7. Non

- Quantified Benefits of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks

................................ .................. 206 154

6.8. Break

- Even Benefit Analysis of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks

................................ ............. 207 155

6.8.1. Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 207 156

6.8.2. Method

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 209 157

6.8.3. Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 211 158

6.8.4. Break

- Even Estimation

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 215 159

6.8.5. Break

- Even Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 219 160

Ch apter 7. Paperwork Burden

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 220 161

Accounting Statement

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 221 162

References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 223 163

164

1651 

## ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL 166



## WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISION S 167

168

169



## E xecutive Summary 170

171

172

EPA is proposing modifications to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) rule, 40 CFR Part 173

170, to improve the protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers. This 174

document provides an analysis of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes to the WPS 175

to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12866 ( Regulatory Planning and Review ), 176

Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and the Regulatory 177

Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Businesses Regulatory Enf orcement Fairness Act. The 178

document also discusses the costs and benefits of alternative options considered by EPA in the 179

development of the proposal. 180

181

Pesticides are designed to be toxic and their use is inherently risky. Between 2000 and 2009, an 182

avera ge of 2,170 occupational pesticide incidents was reported annually to the National Institute 183

of Occupational Safety and Health, of which over 1,200 occurred on agricultural establishments 184

covered by the WPS. The true number of occupational accidents is li kely to be significantly 185

more due to lack of reporting. Acute symptoms from overexposure to pesticides can range from 186

mild skin irritation to more severe effects such as headaches, fatigue and dizziness, nausea, 187

cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision, respi ratory depression and loss of consciousness. In rare 188

cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. Occupational incidents are probably 189

indicative of a larger number of cases where pesticide safety practices are not fully followed 190

resulting in higher levels of pesticide exposure to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers, 191

and possibly bystanders and non

- target organisms, than envisioned in EPA risk assessments and 192

risk management. Even such minor errors are likely to lead to chronic exposu re to pesticides, 193

which is associated with long

- term health issues that are potentially severe, including 194

neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s and several forms of cancer. 195

196



### Market Failure 197

198

Two kinds of ‘market’ failure may give rise to avoidable pest icide exposures: asymmetric 199

information and externalities. The former implies that full information about the consequences 200

of pesticide use is not available to the people who need it. The latter implies that some of the 201

consequences of pesticide use do not fall on the person making use decisions ; this may result in 202

unintended or undesirable amounts or kind s of use for a given pesticide that result in negative 203

consequences for society and/or the environment. If the market fails to provide incentives to 204

d evelop and disseminate pesticide information or fails to provide incentives to avoid external 205

effects, there may be a role for government intervention to protect workers and handlers from the 206

hazards of excess pesticide exposure. 207

208

In conjunction with vario us non

- regulatory programs, the WPS requirements are intended to 209

reduce the risks of illness or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure 2102 to pesticides on agricultural establishment. Broadly speaking, the WPS provisions are meant to 211

(1) inform farm workers and pesticide handlers about the hazards and risks from pesticides they 212

use or to which they come into contact in the workplace, (2) protect workers and handlers from 213

occupational exposure to pesticides and the potential adverse effects of pesticides, and (3) 214

mitigate the potential adverse effects of unavoidable pesticide exposure, including accidents. 215

Within these categories, EPA evaluated the costs and benefits of alternative requirements and is 216

proposing a set of requi rements that, in combination, are expected to achieve substantial benefits 217

at minimum cost. 218

219



### Costs and Benefits 220

221

EPA estimates the incremental cost of all proposed revisions to be between $ 6 2.1 and $ 72. 9 222

million annually, using a three percent discount rate. Usin g a seven percent discount rate, the 223

rule is estimated to cost between $ 6 1.2 and $ 73. 6 million per year. The majority of the costs

, 224

$59.6 to $70.4 million per year, are borne by farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor 225

and use pesticides, which account for about 20 percent of all farms producing crops in the United 226

States. The approximately 2,800 c ommercial pesticide handling establishments, which are 227

contracted to apply pesticides on farms, may see an incremental cost between $2.4 and $2.5 228

mill ion per year

. Family farms, i.e. , not hiring labor, that use pesticides may collectively bear 229

costs of about $100,000 per year. Total costs amount to an average expenditure of about $30 per 230

year per farm worker. Benefits, in terms of reduced exposure to pesticides, will accrue to a 231

broader population and will likely exceed $75 million per year in terms of avoided costs 232

associated with occupational pesticide incidents and with reductions in chronic diseases 233

associated with occupational pesticide exposure. 234

235

Estimates of the total incremental costs are considered an upper bound, primarily because of the 236

assumption that all requirements are applicable to all farms and farmworkers even though the 237

WPS requirements largely apply to workers engaged in hand labor. Much of U.S. agricultural 238

labor is mechanized. EPA includes 153,000 farms primarily engaged in livestock operations in 239

this analysis. Associated crop production is likely to include forage crops or field crops like 240

grain and oilseeds that are highly me chanized. Since they do not involve hand labor activities, 241

employers and employees would not be covered by the field worker requirements of the WPS. 242

Only handler requirements would apply. If the livestock operations are responsible only for 243

handler requ irements, the total incremental cost of the proposed revisions is around $51.2 to 244

$5 9.2 million per year. 245

246

Costs 247

248

Key conclusions from the cost analysis are presented in Table 1. Most of the impacts of the 249

revisions to the WPS will be felt by the 395,000 U.S. farms that hire labor. The cost to 250

individual farms will depend on the number and type of employees employed . EPA estimates 251

that large farms , defined as those with more than $750,000 in sales and which average about 20 252

employees, will incur costs of $ 3 40 to $ 400 per year, on average, using a 3% discount rate. 253

Smaller operations that average two to three worker s are estimated to incur costs between $ 1 30 254

and $ 150 per year, on average, which amounts to less than 0. 1 percent of average annual 255

revenue. EPA, therefore, concludes that there will not be a significant impact on a substantial 2563 number of small entities as a result of the proposed rule. Around 3,000 family farms may be 257

impacted by the proposed standards for closed mixing and loading systems with annualized costs 258

of less than $60 per year, although this figure masks the fact that some farms may choose to 259

in vest in new equipment. Commercial pesticide handling establishments may incur costs of 260

$170 to $190 per year. 261

262

Table 1. Costs from Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard 263

Farms Hiring Labor Family Farms Commercial Pesticide

Handling Establishments

Number Impacted 395,000 3,200 2,800

Annualized Cost $59.6

– 70.4 million $100,000 $2.4

– 2.5 million

Per

- Establishment Large farms $350

- 410

Small farms $130

- 150 $35 $170

- 190

Small Business

Impacts No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

• The rule will affect over 30 0,000 small farms, nurseries, and

greenhouses and several hundred small commercial entities that are

contracted to apply pesticides.

• Impact less than 0.1% of the annual value of sales or revenues for the

average small entity

.

Impact on Jobs The rule will have a negligible effect on jobs and employment.

• The marginal cost of a typical farmworker is expected to increase

$5/year.

• The marginal cost for a more skilled pesticide handler is expected to

increase by $60 per year , but this is less than 0.3 percent of the cost

of a part

- time employee.

264

The marginal increase in cost per field worker is estimated to be less than $ 5.00 per year, which 265

would not be expected to have an impact on employment. The marginal increase in cost per 266

pesticide hand ler employed on a farm is estimated to be less than $60 per year, which represents 267

about 0. 25 percent of the total cost of a part

- time employee, a marginal increase that would not 268

be expected to have an impact on job availability. 269

270

Benefits 271

272

The benefits of the proposed rule accrue to agricultural workers, pesticide handlers and, 273

indirectly to their families. For workers and handlers, t he revised rule is expected to 274

substantially reduce the potential for adverse health effects (acut e and chronic) from 275

occupational exposures to pesticides , and provide them with information and tools to reduce the 276

transport of pesticide residues to their homes

. Self

- employed pesticide handlers, including 277

members of farm families who apply pesticides, will also benefit from reductions in pesticide 278

exposures. 279

280

It is difficult to quantify a specific level of risk and project the risk reduction that will result from 281

this rule, because workers and handlers are potentially exposed to such a wide range of pes ticides 282

with different toxicities and risks. However, the proposed changes to the WPS are designed to 283

reduce occupational exposure to all pesticides; EPA finds sufficient evidence in the peer

- 2844 reviewed literature to suggest reducing pesticide exposure woul d result in a benefit to public 285

health through reduced acute and chronic illness. 286

287

Benefits from Avoiding Acute Incidents 288

289

Given reported cases, EPA estimates that up to 56 percent of pesticide incidents where the WPS 290

applies would have been prevented b y the rule

. The value of avoided medical and productivity 291

losses of this reduction in incidents is estimated to be between $1.2 million and $2.8 million 292

annually , based on the number of reported cases . However, this estimate is biased downward by 293

an unkn own , but potentially significant degree. First, pesticide incidents, like many illnesses and 294

accidents, are underreported because sufferers may not seek medical care, cases may not be 295

correctly diagnosed, and correctly diagnosed cases may not be filed to the central reporting 296

database. The effect of underreporting can be significant. If we assume only 20

- 25% of 297

poisonings are reported and adjust the benefits to account for this level of under

- reporting

, then 298

the low

- end estimate for the benefits of the rule would be about $5 million and the high

- end 299

estimate would be about $1 4 million/year. Second, our approach only measures avoided medical 300

costs and lost wages, not the willingness to pay to avoid possible symptoms due to pesticide 301

exposure, which coul d be substantially higher. These benefits are summarized in Table 2. 302

303

Table 2. Acute Benefits from Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard 304

Category Description Comments

Avoided acute pesticide

incidents • $5

– 14 million/year after

adjustment for

underreporting of pesticide

incidents.

• $1.2

– 2.8 million/year

without adjustment. • Cost of illness and reduced

productivity

.

• Accounts for underreporting.

Qualitative Benefits • Willingness to pay to avoid acute effects of pesticide exposure

beyond cost of treatment and loss of productivity.

• Reduced latent effect of avoided acute pesticide exposure

. 305

Benefits from Reducing Chronic Exposure 306

307

T he weight of evidence suggests that a reduction in pesticide exposure through the proposed rule 308

requirements will result in long term health benefits to the 2.3 million agricultural workers and 309

pesticide handlers. These benefits are expected to accrue through lower expenditure on 310

healthcare due to a reduced burden of chronic illness in the popu l ation. EPA also anticipates 311

there will be benefits such as a healthier society and improved quality of life for agricultural 312

workers

, pesticide handlers and their families through this rule

. However, neither the benefits of 313

reduced chronic disease burden due to reduced pesticide exposure nor the intangible benefit of 314

improved quality of life can be quantified at this time. 315

316

T he peer

- reviewed literature contains well

- documented and biologically plausible statistical 317

associations between pesticide exposure and certain chronic health effects

. For example, 318

e pidemiological researchers have observed links between pesticide exposure and 319

lymphohematopoietic tumors, lung and prostate cancers as well as neurological effects s uch as 3205 Parkinson’s disease, among others. However, t he current state of scientific research concerning 321

the possible association between pesticide exposure and these chronic disease s is such that i t 322

would be premature at this time to conclude that there is a causal link between pesticide 323

ex posures and the chronic disease outcomes, or if there is a causal link , the data are insufficient 324

to establish a dose

- response relationship . As a consequence , it is not possible to directly quantify 325

all of the benefits e xpected to result from reducing agricultural pesticide exposures expected

. 326

However, the totality of reported epidemiological findings suggests that the long term health of 327

agricultural workers and their families will benefit from the rule . Therefore, EPA has estimated 328

the minimum number of cases of chronic disease outcomes which , if avoided, would equal the 329

total cost of the rule ( i.e. , the “break

- even” analysis). 330

331

The health effects potentially caused by occupational pesticide exposure can have dramatic 332

effects on the health and welfare of workers and handlers who suffer these diseases. These 333

illnesses do not only affect those who become ill, but they also may require extensive caregiving 334

by family members or health care professionals

. Using the break

- ev en analysis described in 335

Section 6.8., if the proposed rule prevents only a very small number of chronic illnesses , it could 336

have very substantial benefits. Based upon the best availa ble information, this analysis indicates 337

that a reduction of about 53 pe sticide

- related chronic illnesses per year across the entire WPS 338

occupational population of 2 .3 million workers is all that would be required to ensure the totality 339

of benefits outweigh the costs of the WPS revisions

. Including only six diseases in the br eak

340

even analysis, EPA estimates that a reduction in the occurrence of just those chronic diseases 341

shown in Table 3 by 0.8 percent within the farmworker community is more than enough to 342

provide benefits from reduced chronic illness that would be sufficient to generate total benefits 343

equal to the cost of the rule, given estimates of willingness to pay to avoid representative 344

diseases. In general, farm families with exposure to pesticides show higher incidence rates of 345

certain chronic diseases than the gener al population with little or no exposure to pesticides. 346

Thus, the slight decrease in total incidence rates is a plausible outcome of the proposed revisions 347

to the WPS. 348

349

350

351

Table 3. Chronic Benefits from Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard 352

Category Description Comment

Qualitative benefits

from reduced effects of

chronic pesticide

exposure to workers,

handlers, and

farmworker families • A range of illnesses are associated with

chronic pesticide exposure, including

• Non

- Hod g kins lymphoma

• Prostate Cancer

• Parkinson’s Disease

• Lung Cancer

• Chronic Bronchitis

• Asthma Break

- even analysis for

only these illnesses

shows that , if the

proposed rule changes

prevent a relatively small

number of cases , then the

total benefits of the rule

would outweigh the

costs.

353

Many of the changes to current WPS requirements specifically mitigate the potential for workers 354

to transport pesticide residues home to their families. Thus, the proposed requirements are 355

expected to reduce children’s exposure to pesticides. The benefits of reduced exposure to 3566 children are also impossible to quantify, but they may be large. At every lifestage, including the 357

fetal stage, reduci ng exposure to pesticides could translate into fewer sick days, fewer days 358

missed of school, improved capacity to learn, better education, and better long

- term 359

health. There are benefits to parents and caregivers as well, because healthier families, means 360

fewer missed workdays, and a better quality of life. 361

362

3637 

## ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL 364



## WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISION S 365

366



## Chapter 1

. Introduction 367

368

EPA is proposing modifications to the Wo rker Protection Standard (WPS) rule, 40 CFR Part 369

170, to improve the protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers. The 370

proposed revisions are expected to reduce the risks to workers and handlers from occupational 371

pesticide exposure, and protect farm worker children and other family members from take

- home 372

pesticide exposure

. The proposed changes represent revisions to the worker protection ru le that 373

w as first codified in 1974 and revised in 1992

. 374

375

This document provides an analysis of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes to the 376

WPS as well as for alternatives EPA considered in the development of the proposal

. This section 377

provid es a brief background to the WPS requirements, describes the reasons for EPA’s proposal 378

and the statutory authority for the rule, and identifies entities that may be affected by the rule. 379

Chapter 2 explains the regulatory options EPA considered in develop ing this proposal and 380

discusses qualitatively the expected benefits of the different options. Chapter 3 presents the cost 381

estimates for the regulatory options. Chapter 4 discusses the relative costs and benefits of 382

alternative requirements. Chapters 5 a nd 6 then examine the proposed requirements as a single 383

unit. Chapter 5 estimates the cost of the proposal, taking into account any interactions between 384

the proposed requirements. The ultimate outcome of the rule, in terms avoided adverse health 385

effects resulting from reduced accidental and chronic exposures to pesticides, which will accrue 386

primarily to agricultural employees and their families , are described in Chapter 6

. 387

388

This report is intended to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12866 ( Regulat ory Planning 389

and Review ), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and the 390

Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement 391

Fairness Act

. The remaining regulatory requirements and a full descr iption of the regulatory 392

options EPA is considering in this proposal are addressed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 393

(NPRM) of this rule. This document and the data used in this analysis also serve as input in 394

preparing an analysis required under the P aperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. § 3501

- 21). 395

396



### 1.1 Background 397

398

The EPA’s pesticide worker safety program is responsible for implementation of two primary 399

regulations. The Certification of Pesticide Applicator s r egulation, 40 CFR Part 171

, requires 400

applicators to meet certain competency requirements before they can purchase, use or supervise 401

the use of restricted use pesticide products. EPA is currently revising the rules governing 402

certification of pesticide applicators through another rule making. The Worker Protection 403

Standard r egulation, 40 CFR Part 170, requires agricultural employers and commercial pesticide 404

handler employers to provide specific information and protections to agricultural farm workers 405

and pesticide handlers when pestici des are used in the production of agricultural plants on farms, 406

forests, nurseries and greenhouses. The WPS regulation is intended to reduce the risks of illness 407

or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational exposure to pesticides on 4088 agric ultural establishment. Broadly speaking, the W PS provisions are meant to (1) inform farm 409

workers and pesticide handlers about the hazards and risks from pesticides they use or to which 410

they come into contact in the workplace , (2) protect workers and handl ers from occupational 411

exposure to pesticides and the potential adverse effects of pesticides, and (3) mitigate the 412

potential adverse effects of unavoidable pesticide exposure, including accid ents. These two 413

regulations, along with the other components of t he Agency’s pesticide worker safety program, 414

are intended to reduce and prevent potential exposures to pesticides among pesticide applicators, 415

agricultural employees

, and the general public, including vulnerable populations, such as 416

children. This economi c analysis focuses on the W PS rule

. 417

418

The WPS rule is directed toward the working conditions of two types of employees , which, 419

t hroughout this document, we refer as ‘handlers’ and as ‘workers.’ Handlers are those 420

employees who handle agricultural pesticide s (mix ing , load ing , apply ing pesticides, and 421

performing other activities linked to pesticide application) . These employees may be directly 422

exposed to pesticides and may be responsible for potential exposure of other people and non

423

target organisms. In pr inciple, at least, pesticide handlers also know with which chemicals they 424

work and have access to label information that explains precautions and provides directions for 425

use. Workers are employees who perform tasks related to the cultivation and harvestin g of 426

plants on farms or in greenhouses, nurseries, or forests. Workers are potentially exposed to 427

pesticides t hrough c o ntact with treated plants, resid u es left on other surfaces, or through the air 428

or water on the farm or other operation. On th e i r own, w orker s may have little information 429

about, or control over, the chemicals to which they may be expose d o r even if they are exposed. 430

431

Changes to WPS will largely impact two types of employers who are responsible for providing 432

required protections to their em ployees: agricultural owners/employers, ( i.e. , farm owners, 433

greenhouses, nurseries and forest planting), and employers on commercial pesticide handling 434

establishments (CPHEs). Some revisions may also pertain to other commercial agricultural 435

services, inc luding private crop advisors, but impacts appear to be negligible. 436

437

The benefits of the proposed rule accrue primarily to agricultural workers

, pesticide handlers

, 438

and their families . The proposed changes to the rule will provide more information about the 439

potential risks of pesticide exposure and ways farmworkers and handlers can minimize those 440

exposures. 441

442



### 1.2 Problem Statement 443

444

EPA imposes requirements on the use of pesticides with the intent to avert unreasonable adverse 445

effects to human health and the environment. These requirements include current worker 446

protection standards and pesticide

- specific use restrictions found on the product label. However, 447

despite these safeguards, occupational pesticide poisonings still occur. The National Institute for 448

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Council of State and Territorial 449

Epidemiologists (CSTE) compile a set of indicators to monitor occupational health. Indicator 11 450

tracks a cute w ork

- r elated p esticide p oisonings reported to p oi son control c enters . From 2000 to 451

2009, the number of cases reported by this source ranged from 2,827 in 2000 to 2,040 in 2009, 452

with an average number of 2,465 cases reported per year (CSTE, 2011). Reports include all 453

occupational cases, not only those where WPS is a pplicable. An EPA review of another dataset 4549 on occupational exposures (SENSOR

- Pesticides, described in more detail in Chapter 6) indicates 455

that about 57 percent of reported occupational cases occurred on establishments where WPS 456

requirements apply. If th at rate applies to Indicator 11 data, about 1,400 incidents annually 457

would be reported from WPS establishments. Although the number of cases was generally 458

trending down over this period, there remain a substantial number of incidents. Many of these 459

pois onings are avoidable and it may be possible to mitigate the adverse effects of exposures 460

when they occur. Moreover, incidents are likely to reflect a larger number of cases where 461

employers or employees fail to follow label instruction or make mistakes in applications, much 462

like traffic accidents at intersections likely reflect the common practice of rolling through stop 463

signs. But while rolling through a stop sign increases the probability of an accident, lax pesticide 464

safety practices result in higher le vels of pesticide exposure to workers and handlers, and 465

possibly bystanders and non

- target organisms, even if they do not lead to a clearly defined 466

incident. These minor errors are also likely to lead to more chronic exposure to pesticides. 467

468



### 1.2.1 Risks of Acute Pesticide Exposure 469

470

Use of pesticides, substances designed to be toxic, is inherently risky. Some pesticides are 471

narrowly targeted to specific life forms or processes while others have effects across a broad 472

spectrum of organisms, including huma ns. Handlers and workers can be exposed many ways, 473

and workers and handlers can be exposed to multiple pesticides over the course of a growing 474

season (Arcury et al

., 2010). Some exposures to some pesticides can result in a wide range of 475

acute symptoms. T he acute symptoms from overexposure to pesticides vary, and can range from 476

mild skin irritation to more severe effects. Exposures to organophosphate (OP) pesticides, for 477

example, can result in headaches, fatigue and dizziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired 478

vision and other effects (Schulze et al

., 1997). Some pesticides can cause in seizures, respiratory 479

depression and loss of consciousness (Reigart and Roberts, 1999). In rare cases, unintentional 480

pesticide exposures result in death. These are j ust a few of the many diverse symptoms that can 481

be caused by pesticide exposure; Reigart and Roberts (1999) list almost 100 different symptoms 482

that a medical professional could expect to see following an acute exposure. 483

484

While illnesses resulting from pes ticide exposures to workers and handlers are underreported 485

(see the discussion in Section 6.5.1), there are peer

- reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness 486

reporting and surveillance initiatives that show evidence of illnesses to workers and handlers. 487

C alvert, et al . (2008), for example, looked at reported pesticide poisoning incidents among 488

agricultural workers from 1998

- 2005. Illness rates varied across time, age, and region, but for 489

agricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order of magnitude higher than for non

490

agricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the sample)). Das et al . (2001) identified 491

486 pesticide illness cases among California farmworkers for 1998

- 1999, based on a surveillance 492

program with mandatory reporting by physicia ns. Das et al . found that about half of all pesticide 493

related illness cases in the California surveillance system were agricultural workers. Over a 494

quarter of the poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying pesticides. The most 495

common symptoms w ere dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 39%), and 496

gastrointestinal (about 38%), and the most common route of exposure was skin contact, followed 497

by inhalation and eye contact. 498

49910 Children and the Families of Agricultural Employees 500

501

The families of agricultural workers and pesticide handlers are also exposed to pesticides, and 502

several of the changes proposed to the WPS rule are focused on providing additional protections 503

to children, both those living in the homes of workers and handlers, as well as those adolescents 504

working on farms. 505

506

Research has shown that agricultural workers’ perceptions about pesticide safety can lead to 507

excess pesticide exposure in the home. Snipes et al

., ( 2009 ) conducted interviews with 99 508

farmworkers and handlers in the Yakima Valley and found several misconceptions or practices 509

that might lead to takehome exposure that could be changed through training. In particular, 510

respondents believe that dry powder pesti cides are much less harmful than sprays and liquids, 511

PPE is l ess regularly worn when there is financial pressure to work quickly, and farmworkers 512

were delayed washing their hand s and bodies immediately after work. Quandt et al . (1998) 513

found that farmworkers believed pesticides were only dangerous for their intended target and 514

that acute (not chronic) exposure was the primary danger (referenced in Rao et al ., 2007). In 515

reality, o ther exposure routes for pregnant women and children may include spray drift from 516

nearby agricultural areas, or when children are taken to where their parents are working. 517

Prenatal exposures may be particularly important for long

- term development effects in children

. 518

Children and adolescents at various stages in development offer windows of opportunity for 519

chemical exposures to have particu larly significant effects on growth and development, which 520

means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or 521

lesser health impacts. At various development stages, humans metabolize chemicals differently, 522

such th at chemical exposures have more or less effect at different ages. 523

524

Several recent studies have shown that the children of people engaged in agriculture can be 525

exposed to multiple pesticides. Arcury et al

. (2007) found metabolites of 13 pesticides in the 526

urine of farmworker children, with the most common result being four different metabolites in a 527

urine sample. The study concludes that children in farmworker homes face multiple non

- dietary 528

sources of expos ure to pesticides that remain in the home environment for long periods of time. 529

Bradman et al . (2009), in a study to develop pesticide exposure models, found 29 different 530

pesticides in the homes of 20 farmworker children in the Salinas Valley of Californi a, and 531

pesticide metabolites in the urine of all 20. Curwin et al . (2005) compared 25 farm and 25 non

532

farm households in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination inside the homes. They found 533

significantly higher levels of atrazine and metolachlor (which only have agricultural uses) in 534

farm households. The distribution of the samples in the various rooms of the house (higher 535

levels in the worker’s changing area and the laundry area) suggest that the pesticides are being 536

transported home on farmer’s cloth ing and shoes. There were also higher levels of agricultural 537

pesticides in home vehicles for farm families. In a literature review of the takehome exposure 538

pathway, Vida et al . (2007), reported results that indicate the takehome exposure is an important 539

source of exposure for children. Studies cited by Vida et a l. (2007) consistently found higher 540

levels of pesticides in the agricultural households and that levels of OP residues vary by 541

agricultural activity. The highest levels of azinphos

- methyl, for e xample were associated with 542

thinning activities that a farmworker would perform, for example (Coronado et al

., 2004, 543

Coronado et al

., 2006). Curl et al

., (2002) found a high correlation between residues in the home 544

and residues in vehicles, which suggest the takehome pathway is the source for the residues. 54511 Exposure studies on organophosphate metabolites in maternal and child urine samples, suggest 546

that the takehome pathway is leading to exposure in farm families (Bradman et al

., 2003, 2005, 547

Bradman 2007, Eskenazi et al

., 2004, 2007). 548

549

Adolescent workers and handlers 550

551

A dolescents working on farms or as handlers can be exposed to pesticides via the same path ways 552

as adult workers and handlers, but they may face higher levels of exposure and greater risks

. 553

554

There is evidence that adolescents do not make risk management decisions in the way that adults 555

do that make exposure to pesticides more likely. Adolescents are more prone to accidents than 556

the population at large. For example, the fatality rate for dr ivers between 16 and 19 is four times 557

the rate for all adults (Institute for Highway Safety, 2008). In an agricultural context, 558

adolescents working on farms have shown awareness of safety issues, rules, and the risks of 559

injury on farms, but they behave ac cording to their own perception of risk, and take more risks 560

while playing on the farm; the play often uses farming equipment and occurs during worktime 561

(Rowntree, Darragh et al

. , 1998). The cognitive development of adolescents affects behavior, 562

particula rly in the areas of judgment, risk

- taking and decision making ability (Steinberg, 2005). 563

The parts of the brain going through these maturation processes in adolescents are important for 564

perception of risk, evaluation of risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan 565

et al

. , 2010). 566

567

Salazar et al . (2004) reported that in a focus group studying 33 Hispanic adolescent farmworkers, 568

teens knew of the risk associated with pesticide exposure; however, varying opinions existed 569

among the group relating to individual susceptibility, and responses indicated a somewhat 570

cavalier attitude toward health and safety issues (Salazar et al

., 2004). 571

572

According to Calvert et al

. (2003) , pesticide poisoning surveillance data shows that working 573

youths were more likely than adults to suffer an occupational related pestici de illness, attributed 574

to lower levels of experience with pesticides, and greater sensitivity to pesticide toxicity (Calvert 575

et al

. , 2003). The literature shows that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior 576

than adults. In economic terms , adolescents behave as if they have extremely high discount 577

rates, i.e. , very little beyond the immediate moment matters. 578

579

Children and adolescents are still going through important developmental changes, and pesticide 580

exposure can have a more deleteriou s effect on these developing physiological systems. 581

Although adolescents are more fully developed than younger children, there are still important 582

development processes continuing. In particular brain changes still continue, such as the final 583

maturation of the cerebral cortex through synaptic pruning and myelination (important 584

physiological process that reduce the excess neuron connections in the brain and enclosing 585

individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increase the efficiency of information 586

p rocessing) (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur during adolescence, when the 587

effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be particularly harmful (Golub, 588

2000). In addition, the earlier occupational exposure gives more ti me for any delayed health 589

effects from chronic exposure to manifest themselves over a full lifetime. 590

59112 

### 1.2.2 Risks of Chronic Pesticide Exposure 592

593

In addition to the effects of acute exposure mentioned above, workers and handlers face risks 594

from chronic e xposure to pesticides, as well. Although the children and families may suffer 595

illness from an acute exposure, the more likely exposure scenario for this group is exposure to 596

low levels of pesticides over a longer period of time, either from the agricultur al environment or 597

in the home, where pesticides have been transported on the clothes of workers and handlers. 598

There are a broad range of illnesses with a relationship to this type of chronic exposure. 599

600

There is evidence to suggest that exposures in the home or pre

- natal occupational exposure to 601

pregnant women may affect children. Pre

- natal exposure to pregnant women may have 602

particularly important effects on neurological development of children (see below), and Wigle et 603

al . (2009) find an association between prenatal exposure to the mother and future childhood 604

leukemia. As an example, there are agricultural pesticides in use that are regulated on the basis 605

of developmental toxicity ( i.e. , structural abnormalities, functional deficiencies, altered grow th 606

and fetal loss). These developmental effects can result from an acute overexposure to the 607

pregnant farmworker during windows of susceptibility of fetal development during pregnancy. 608

609

While only a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens by 610

various peer

- review bodies, there is a wide literature demonstrating statistical associations 611

between pesticide exposure and cancer, with biological plausibility illustrated in experimental 612

toxicology studies. The International Agen cy for Research on Cancer (IARC) has only 613

identified two classes of pesticides to be carcinogens (some arsenical insecticides and those with 614

dioxin contaminants), but classifies non

- arsenical pesticides as possible human carcinogens. 615

However, many studie s have evaluated other possible links between pesticide exposure and 616

cancer. 617

618

Synthesizing across the studies of carcinogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review articles 619

and meta

- analytic results indicate evidence of an association between various pe sticide exposure 620

and lymphohematopoetic cancers (non

- Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia specifically); 621

among solid tumors (brain and prostate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric cancer risk in 622

association with either in utero exposure or parental pesticide occupational exposure (Bassil et 623

al

., 2007; Blair and Beane

- Freeman, 2009; Koutros et al

., 2010 a ; Van Maele et al

., 2011, Wigle 624

et al

., 2009, Turner et al

., 2009, Alavanja and Bonner, 2012, and Alavanja et al ., 2013). 625

626

Blair and Beane

- Freeman ( 2009) provides a review of epidemiologic studies of cancer among 627

agricultural populations. They report that meta

- analyses of mortality surveys of farmers find 628

excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple myeloma 629

and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain and deficits for total mortality, heart disease, total 630

cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that meta

- analyses 631

of studies of individual cancers show the importance of identi fying specific exposures that lead 632

to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these authors conclude factors other than 633

pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among 634

agriculturally exposed occupational groups (Blair and Beane

- Freeman, 2009). 635

63613 Initial evidence of a possible association between various pesticide exposures and cancers of the 637

lung, colon, prostate, bladder and pancreas have also been published by Agricultural Health 638

Study (AHS) researchers (for example, Alavanja et al

., 2004 for lung cancer, Lee et al

., 2007 for 639

colon cancer, Andreotti et al

., 2009 for pancreatic cancer). Among farmworkers specifically, 640

cancers of the cervix and stomach have also been noted (Mills and Yang 2009). 641

642



### 1.2. 3 Market Failure 643

644

Two kinds of ‘market’ failure may give rise to avoidable pesticide exposures: asymmetric 645

information and externalities. The former implies that full information about the consequences 646

of pesticide use is not available to the people who ne ed it. The latter implies that some of the 647

consequences of pesticide use do not fall on the person making use decisions and that, therefore, 648

there may be a socially undesirable amount or kind of use. If the market fails to provide 649

incentives to develop a nd disseminate pesticide information or fails to provide incentives to 650

avoid external effects, there may be a role for government intervention to protect workers and 651

handlers from the hazards of excess pesticide exposure. This intervention must adapt to c hanges 652

in industry and, especially, to the advancements of scientific knowledge about the risks of 653

pesticide exposure. 654

655

Asymmetric Information 656

657

Asymmetric information may be the most critical problem leading to avoidable pesticide 658

exposure. Handlers working directly with pesticides and agricultural workers on farms where 659

pesticides are used may not have complete information about the occupational risks they face or 660

the potential consequences to their families if pesticide residues are transported to the home. 661

Asymmetric information arises in two ways. 662

663

First, there may be barriers to employees obtaining the information if not provided by the 664

employer . Many who are employed in agriculture, for example, are not native English speakers; 665

an estimated 44 percent of agricultural employees do not speak English (US Department of 666

Labor, 2005). Many are migrant laborers who could lack access to sources of informatio n, such 667

as familiar extension agents, because they are frequently away from home, but many workers 668

may not have access, especially internet access, to convenient, reliable information (US 669

Department of Labor, 2005). These barriers result in high search co sts that can deter agricultural 670

workers and handlers from obtaining information on their own. Finally, information regarding 671

pesticides and pesticide use may not be available to the employee in the time frame that is 672

required to take appropriate action. 673

674

Second, there may not be incentives for workers and handlers to seek out information about 675

pesticides. Symptoms of pesticide poisoning may be confused with general fatigue, heat stress, 676

or other factors, especially for workers who may not even be aware th at they have been in 677

contact with pesticides or in pesticide

- treated areas. Long

- term or chronic effects of pesticide 678

exposure do not manifest themselves immediately and employees may not be motivated to learn 679

more about the risks they face given more imm ediate job requirements. These issues can result 68014 in workers and handlers with insufficient information to make informed choices about their 681

safety. 682

683

Externalities 684

685

Another factor that contributes to unnecessary pesticide exposure is that the party makin g the 686

application decision does not bear all of the negative effects of a pesticide application, including 687

the health effects on others. This is a classic externality that can result in a divergence between 688

the social and private costs of using a pesticid e. 689

690

An externality of this type could imply that there are fewer protections for workers and handlers 691

than would be socially desirable. Employers may lack the incentive to seek out or act on the 692

information they have on the negative consequences of pestic ides or the possible measures that 693

can be taken to avoid negative outcomes. This may be particularly true when the adverse effects 694

are not readily observable, but occur due to chronic exposure. Moreover, there are numerous 695

pesticides, many with complex e ffects on human and environmental systems, which can make it 696

costly for employers to obtain information for their employees. Similarly, adequate protections 697

may require specialized knowledge, e.g. , toxicology, that employers simply do not have. 698

699

Evolving Knowledge on Worker Protections 700

701

Another concern is the presence of institutional constraints. EPA last revised the WPS 702

requirements in 1992. Some existing requirements have proven to be vague or open to differing 703

interpretations leading to regulatory un certainty. Moreover, society’s understanding of exposure 704

and risk has evolved and regulatory requirements are most useful when they reflect current 705

knowledge. 706

707

Environmental Justice Issues 708

709

There are several reasons that environmental justice consideratio ns are especially important for 710

the agricultural employees covered by the WPS. 711

712

• Because of their occupation, workers and handlers face more potential exposure to 713

pesticides than the general public, and may be subject to multiple exposures of different 714

pe sticides over the course of their working life. 715

716

• Language barriers and challenges for this workforce make it difficult for workers and 717

handlers to participate in making decisions about the risks they face as they perform their 718

jobs. 719

720

• Workers, handlers and their families may be subject to a higher risk of harm than non

721

agricultural workers. Children and adolescents are especially vulnerable to pesticide 722

exposure, because their body systems are still developing. Poverty, poor nutrition and 723

lack of acce ss to health care can exacerbate the risks from this exposure. 724

72515 • The cumulative effects of occupational pesticide exposure can have long term impacts on 726

the health of worker and handler communities. See Section 1.2.2. These potential effects 727

are discussed in some detail in Chapter 6. 728

729

According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), in 2001

- 2002 (DoL, 2005), 75 730

percent of farmworkers were born in Mexico. Twenty three percent were born in the U.S., with a 731

small percentage born in other countries. Eighty one percent of the community speaks Spanish 732

as a native language, with a growing percentage speaking other languages such as Creole, or 733

Mixteco . Forty

- four percent of workers could not speak English “at all” and 53 percent could 734

not read English “at all,” and many workers have received minimal formal education. The 735

NAWS reports that

, in 2001

- 2002

, most foreign

- born workers completed the sixth grade, 736

whereas most US

- born worke rs completed the eleventh grade. Forty three percent traveled at 737

least 75 miles in the previous year to find an agricultural job, and are therefore defined as 738

migrant, posing challenges for effective outreach

. Twenty one percent live in housing provided 739

by their employer, with 58 percent living in housing rented from someone else. The NAWS 740

( DoL, 2005) found that crop workers’ average annual income was between $10,000 and $12,499, 741

with total family income averaging between $15,000 and $17,499. Thirty p ercent of surveyed 742

workers had family incomes below the poverty level. 743

744



### 1. 3 Affected Communities 745

746

The primary entities that will be impacted by the proposed changes to the WPS are agricultural 747

employees and their families, agricultural establishments ( wh ich include farms , forests, nurseries 748

and greenhouses) that use pesticides in the production of agricultural plants and hire workers or 749

handlers , and commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHE s). Other affected entities 750

include family farms that u se pesticides, forestry operations, and businesses providing crop 751

advisory services. Under the proposed revisions, s tate agencie s are expected to incur only 752

minimal costs associated with the revision of these regulations

. 753

754



### 1.3 .1 Agricultural Employees 755

756

WPS offers protections to as many as 2.3 million agricultural employees (NASS, 2008b ). The 757

current rule is intended to protect worker s and handlers on farms, nurseries, and greenhouses 758

from pesticide exposure. WPS also covers employees of forestry operat ions although most 759

workers in forestry would generally not be at substantially more risk than the general public due 760

to pesticide use patterns in forestry. 761

762

Pesticides of one type or another are used on the majority of farms in the United States, so a 763

larg e portion of the agricultural workforce is potentially exposed each year. According to data 764

from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), over 300,000 farms employing over 2.0 765

million workers used pesticides in 2007. EPA estimates that within the fa rmworker population 766

are almost 250,000 employees who handle pesticides, including those who mix and load 767

pesticides and assist with application as well as those who apply pesticides. Over several years, 768

however, it is likely that nearly all 395,000 agricu ltural establishments that hire labor will use 769

pesticides, thus all agricultural workers are potentially exposed to risks of adverse health effects. 77016 However, many farm workers are not engaged in hand labor activities and the potential for 771

exposure is quit e low. 772

773

Agricultural workers and handlers are expected to benefit from the proposed rule through 774

provisions that would require agricultural employers to provide information to workers and 775

handlers about risks from pesticides and ways they can minimize their exposure, to provide 776

warnings about treated areas, to provide protective measures such as personal protective 777

equipment , and to provide decontamination supplies in case they are exposed to agricultura l 778

pesticides. The costs of the proposed rule are not generally expected to fall directly on workers 779

and handlers. 780

781



### 1.3

. 2 Regulated Entities 782

783

According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there were over 2.2 million 784

agricultural establishmen ts in the United States. Another 10,000 commercial establishments do 785

business such as providing contract services for pest control (Census Bureau, 2006). The WPS 786

covers a subset of agricultural establishments involved in plant agricultur e . These include farms, 787

livestock operations that grow crops, greenhouses, nurseries, and forestry operations . A n 788

a gricultural employer is defined as any person who is an owner of, or is responsible for, the 789

management or condition of an agricultural establishment, and e mploys any worker or handler. 790

The WPS also covers self

- employed handlers, such as the operator of a family farm who applies 791

pesticides. 792

793

For the purposes of this analysis, we distinguish two types of establishments affected by the rule : 794

(1) farms , includ ing livestock operations that produce crops, nurseries, greenhouses, and forestry 795

operations, and (2) commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHE s ). Within each type, 796

we further distinguish between those who are self

- employed ( e.g. , the family far m) and those 797

who employ others. Farms that use pesticides and hire labor bear most of the cost of the 798

proposed changes to the WPS. The major sources of impact will be in additional labor cost to 799

account for time spent in training and in giving and receiv ing information. 800

801

Agricultural Establishments 802

803

According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there are over 2.2 million farms, 804

nurseries, and greenhouses in the United States, of which over 1.5 million are involved in plant 805

agriculture. At EP A’s request, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 806

Statistics Service (NASS) conducted a special tabulation of data in the 2007 Census of 807

Agriculture and determined that 788,582 agricultural establishments producing crops used 808

pesticide s in 2007. Of those, 304,348 farms also hired labor, leaving 484,234 family farms that 809

used pesticides in 2007. Those family farms, however, are exempt from most provisions of the 810

WPS. Family farms benefit from the WPS because it provides several except ions or alternatives 811

to pesticide label requirements including permission to enter treated fields during the Restricted 812

Entry Interval (REI) under certain conditions. The WPS also sets standards for engineering 813

controls, such as closed mixing and loading systems and enclosed cabs, which may substitute for 814

personal protective equipment (PPE). 81517 816

The WPS, and any revisions to it, will primarily affect the establishments that use pesticides and 817

hire labor such as the 304,348 farms identified in the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 818

2008b). However, pesticides are not necessarily used every year, even by conventional growers. 819

Thus, EPA uses the number of farms hiring labor, 394,658, as the likely universe of farms 820

covered by WPS requirements (NASS, 2008b). For convenience, throughout this document, we 821

refer to the farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor as “WPS farms.” The use of all 822

farms hiring labor may be a slight overestimation due to the presence of organic growers, 823

however many organic produce rs also have conventionally grown fields and organic

- approved 824

pesticides, while generally considered less toxic to humans, must still be handled carefully and 825

are subject to WPS standards of safety. The number of these farms actually using pesticides in 826

a ny given year, as indicated by the 2007 Census, will be important for many of the requirements. 827

828

Similar information on the number of entities using pesticides for forestry operations is not 829

available. However, WPS requirements do not apply when treated a reas are removed from areas 830

where workers are employed. Given forest production practices, pesticide applications and 831

worker activities are commonly quite distinct and so WPS requirements would rarely impact 832

forestry operations. 833

834

Commercial Pesticide Hand ling Establishments 835

836

The number of c ommercial p esticide h andling e stablishments or CPHEs is derived from Dunn 837

and Bradstreet (D&B, 2010 ) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Statistics ( BLS, 838

2008 ) data series. CPHEs employ pesticide handlers who are not hired directly by WPS farm s. 839

About 5,000 individual firms were identified from a search of D&B for firms that are listed 840

under the NAICS code 115112 (Soil preparation, planting, and cultivating). In order to 841

determine the number of firms that would qualify as commercial pesticide handling 842

establishments as defined by the WPS, EPA determined that only the 1,231 firms which reported 843

hiring at least one employee with the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 844

descriptions: crop spraying services, crop disease control services, crop protecting services, soil 845

chemical treatment services, and weed control services (before and after planting) would be 846

defined as CPHEs under WPS. EPA also estimates that there are 1 ,562 aerial applicators 847

covered by the WPS , based on information provided by the National Agricultural Aviation 848

Association (N AAA, 2008). 849

850

EPA further estimated, based on the number of commercial applicators certified for plant 851

production, that there are n early 87,000 self

- employed handlers providing commercial services 852

to the agricultural sector (CPARD, 2007). 853

854



### 1. 4 Overview of Proposed Regulation 855

856

EPA is proposing requirements to address the problems arising from inadequate information and 857

externalities, t o clarify required actions, and to reflect current knowledge. Chapter 2 discusses 858

the proposed requirements, as well as alternative requirements, in more detail. For this analysis, 859

EPA organizes the proposed requirements into eight categories. 86018 861

Three cat egories primarily address the issue of incomplete information. Training requirements 862

are designed to provide general information to employees where an important aspect of the 863

pesticide safety training is to provide workers and handlers with information ab out the risks of 864

pesticides and steps they can take to minimize their exposure. Hazard Communication 865

and Notification requirements are designed to provide timely application

- specific information. 866

These proposed requirements would mean that agricultural w orkers receive the information they 867

need when they need it. 868

869

Three categories address the externality issue and provide protections to employees working with 870

pesticides. Age restrictions are meant to protect adolescents, whose developing systems may be 871

mo re susceptible to pesticide effects. Adolescents may also be less able to judge the potential 872

risks of exposure, especially the long

- term effects, compared to adults. Entry restrictions are 873

designed to reduce the possible adverse effects on workers who a re in proximity either in time or 874

space to a pesticide application. Requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE) are 875

intended to provide handlers with protection from pesticide exposure during handling tasks. 876

877

The final two categories revise regul ations to provide greater clarity and to help employers 878

adequately prepare for the possibility of exposure. The proposed requirements 879

for decontamination supplies and emergency assistance clarify existing requirements. 880

881



### 1.4 .1 Need for Federal Regulation 882

883

States and territories may establish local standards, provided the minimum federal standards are 884

met. For improved protections and efficiency, EPA concludes that the federal standards should 885

be revised. 886

887

First, there are efficiency gains for state and loc al agencies responsible for implementing worker 888

protection standards. Many states rely on the federal standards because data on pesticide effects 889

are largely assessed at the national level to save resources and the duplication of effort. Thus, 890

while stat es have the authority to issue their own regulations, they may lack the resources to 891

individually examine toxicological and exposure data and revise protection standards. 892

893

There are also potential efficiency gains for agricultural establishments when there is greater 894

consistency in worker protection requirements across states. Many workers migrate through the 895

agricultural season as different crops and regions need labor at different times. If worker 896

protection standards vary significantly across jurisdict ions, workers may be confused about their 897

rights and regulatory protections. Additionally, agricultural employers and farm managers or 898

supervisors who cross state boundaries may inadvertently be out of compliance if regulatory 899

requirements are inconsisten t. Further, if different states imposed different requirements, 900

workers who cross state boundaries may be confused about their rights and responsibilities. 901

Different notification requirements, in particular, that might present information in different 902

wa ys, would be particularly confusing. 903

90419 There may also be efficiency gains in establishing consistent training requirements. Federal 905

requirements for training standards can ease the burden of developing programs for individual 906

entities. 907

908



### 1. 4 .2 Statutory Aut hority 909

910

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1947 established a 911

framework for the regulation of pesticide products. Major amendments in 1972 by the Federal 912

Environmental Pesticide Control Act (7 USC 136 et. seq .) broadened fede ral pesticide regulatory 913

authority to make it “unlawful for any person to use any registered product in a manner 914

inconsistent with its labeling” (7 USC 136i(a)(2)(G)). The 1972 amendments provided civil and 915

criminal penalties for violations of the Act (7 U SC 136l) and authorized the Administrator to 916

provide regulations to carry out the Act (7 USC 136w(a)). The new and revised provisions 917

directed EPA to protect humans and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects of 918

pesticides. 919

92020 

## Chapter 2

. Regulatory Options for Amending the WPS 921

922

EPA is proposing modifications to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) to improve the 923

protections for agricultural workers, handlers and their families. The WPS establishes 924

requirements to inform agricultural worker s and handlers that they may encounter pesticides 925

either through contact with treated surfaces or through handling activities including mixing, 926

loading and applying pesticides. Broadly speaking, the WPS is meant to (1) inform workers and 927

handlers about the pesticides they use or to which they come into contact, (2) protect workers 928

and handlers from the adverse effects of pesticides, and (3) mitigate the adverse effects of 929

exposure

. 930

931

This chapter provides a summary of the proposed changes to the WPS, as we ll as alternative 932

options considered by EPA. The discussion provides a general overview of each potenti al 933

change to the WPS; the proposed regulatory text for 40 CFR part 170 provide s the actual 934

regulatory language. Provisions in the rule where there are no changes considered are not 935

discussed. The NPRM for the proposed rule presents a dditional detail on the proposed changes 936

and the alternatives considered , including some additional alternatives not considered here that 937

were rejected for reasons such as p racticality and enforceability

. The discussion in this chapter 938

focuses on the benefits of the proposals and alternative options. Chapter 3 estimates the costs 939

each would impose and Chapter 4 discusses the relative costs and benefits. 940

941

The next section of this chapter describes EPA’s non

- regulatory programs that have been 942

established to improve worker safety. The remainder of the chapter is organized according to the 943

ways the proposals will improve worker safety ( i.e. , to inform workers, protect against e xposure

, 944

or mitigate the effects of exposure). For each of these three broad elements , the individual line 945

items that make up the regulatory options are discussed. Section 2.2 of this chapter discusses the 946

changes that will better inform workers and hand lers about protecting themselves from pesticide 947

expo s ure, which comprise three categories, training, hazard communication, and notification

. 948

The provisions that protect workers against the adverse effects of pesticide exposure are in 949

Section 2.3 and are d ivided into three categories , age requirements, restrictions on entry into a 950

treated area

, and personal protective equipment (PPE) requirement s to protect against exposure

. 951

T he final section , 2.4, addresses changes to the WPS that will mitigate the advers e effects of 952

contact with pesticides including provision of decontamination supplies and emergency response 953

requirements. Please refer to the NPRM for the WPS revisions for a complete discussion of the 954

regulatory options considered under this rulemaking p roposal and the rationale for the Agency’s 955

selection of the final proposed options. 956

95721 

### 2.1 Complementary Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety 958

959

EPA’s p esticide w orker s afety p rogram is comprised of three major components: 960

• protections for agricultural labor through the agricultural w orker p rotection regulation 961

and support activities; 962

• the establishment of federal competency standards for the certification of pesticide 963

applicator s ; and 964

• the n ational h ealth c are p roviders ’ pes ticide i nitiative. 965

966



### 2. 1 .1 Non

- regulatory Approaches 967

968

In addition to the regulatory changes that EPA is proposing, the Agency engages in extensive 969

non

- reg ulatory approaches to protect agricultural workers, handlers, their families and the public 970

from pesticide exposure and potential injury. To implement these programs, the Office of 971

Pesticide Programs works with an extensive network of partners including state and tribal 972

pesticide regulatory agencies, USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agricul ture (NIFA); 973

university cooperative extension services; farmworker advocacy groups; and the regulated 974

community. 975

976

EPA funds pesticide safety education and outreach, and regulatory support activities through 977

grants with governmental and non

- governmental o rganizations with the goal of improving the 978

health of workers, handlers, applicators, the public, and the environment. For example, EPA has 979

a grant with National Association of State Departments of Agriculture

- Research Foundation 980

(NASDA

- RF) to enhance and support national pesticide safety program efforts in order to reduce 981

pesticide exposure risks in pesticide worker and other affected populations. Regionally, 982

nationall y, and internationally, NASDA

- RF, in collaboration with EPA, works with a variety of 983

pa rtners (community

- based organizations, businesses, educators, researchers, health care 984

providers, regulators, subject matter experts, ag ricultural retailers) to assess the needs of the 985

targeted communities and develop creative community

- based action plan s to enhance risk 986

reduction via targeted training and outreach methods including: workshops, hands

- on training, 987

fact sheets, manu als, exams, Web, DVDs, and webinars. 988

989

EPA partners the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Saf ety 990

and Health (NIOSH) Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR) 991

program, which gathers information related to occupational pesticide incidents, including those 992

experienced by farmworkers. These data have been useful in characterizing the benefits of these 993

rule proposals, as discussed in Chapter 6. 994

995

EPA has a lso participated in the Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Worker’s Survey 996

(NAWS), which collects demographic, health, and working condition information from 997

farmworkers and handlers. These data are useful to direct the development of materials i n 998

appropriate languages and complexity. 999

1000

EPA support s state implementation of 40 CFR part 171, which regulate s the competency of 1001

pesticide applicators who use restricted use pesticides (RUPs), through an interagency agreement 10022 2 with USDA to support the train ing of applicators using RUPs through the cooperative ext ension 1003

services in each state. 1004

1005

A core element of EPA’s pesticide worker safety program is the national h ealth c are providers 1006

p esticide i nitiative, aimed at improving the training of health care prov iders in the recognition, 1007

diagnosis, and treatment of occupational pesticide poisonings. EPA collaborated in the 1008

development of a manual for health care providers called “Recognition and Management of 1009

Pesticide Poisoning.” This resource outlines the heal th effects associated with different classes 1010

of pesticides and suggests treatments b ased on the suspected exposure. Under this initiative, 1011

EPA also works closely with the Migrant Clinicians Network, which operates a project to 1012

improve pesticide education and awareness and to train health care providers to recognize and 1013

treat pesticide

- related conditions. This project includes the development of relevant resources 1014

and tools that health care providers need to deal effectively with pesticide

- related health 1015

co nditions, and the distribution of these products through training sessions, the Internet, and 1016

continuing education opportunities. 1017

1018

The regulatory changes proposed for the WPS are designed to complement EPA’s pesticide 1019

worker safety program activities to im prove protections for agricultural workers, handlers, and 1020

their families. In many cases, the regulatory changes that EPA is considering came out of the 1021

process of consulting with stakeholders and industry participants on how to improve pesticide 1022

worker sa fety

. 1023

1024



### 2. 1. 2 Regulatory Approaches 1025

1026

Approval of a new or amended pesticide registration for sale and use implies EPA approval of 1027

the pesticide label. By law, use of a pesticide must not result in unreasonable risks to human 1028

health or the environment. It is illegal to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent 1029

with its labeling. EPA uses the labeling to establish and convey mandatory requirements for how 1030

the pesticide must be used in order to protect people and the environment from pesticide 1031

ex posure. T he label reflects the risk mitigation measures required by the Agency for a specific 1032

pesticide, where these measures are determined according to the results of the Agency’s risk 1033

assessments, including occupational risk assessments. 1034

1035

The label, ho wever, is not available to the typical farmworker, because they are not involved in 1036

the use of the pesticide; as noted previously, they are potentially exposed via contact with treated 1037

surfaces after the application has been completed. The WPS complements the label by providing 1038

protections from this post

- application exposure. It established requirements on the employer to 1039

notify employees of treated areas, to provide pesticide safety training information that enables 1040

workers and handlers to protect themse lves and their families, to provide supplies to be used to 1041

mitigate a pesticide exposure, and to provide emergency assistance in the case a worker or 1042

handler is made ill from such an exposure. These requirements are generic, crossing all 1043

agricultural use products covered by the WPS and are more appropriately, efficiently, and 1044

consistently covered in regulation. 1045

104623 

### 2.2 Options to Inform Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers 1047

1048

EPA is considering changes to requirements for pesticide safety training , hazar d communication, 1049

and notification of agricultural workers and handlers to better inform them of potential dangers 1050

related to pesticide exposure. These measures work together to provide workers with important 1051

information about their working conditions and how they should act in those conditions. 1052

Changes to the pesticide safety training requiremen ts will increase worker and handler 1053

understanding of their potential exposure and knowledge of appropriate measures to take to 1054

protect themselves and their familie s. Hazard communication requirements make application

1055

specific and pesticide

- specific information available when needed. N otification includes 1056

measures to ensure that workers know about pesticide

- treated areas and that reinforce pesticide 1057

safety training . Better hazard communication and notification impart s more appropriate 1058

information to workers so they can avoid unnecessary exposure to pesticides and take proper 1059

protective measures when necessary. 1060

1061

For each of these potential modifications to the WPS, a summary table of the current , proposed, 1062

and alternative re quirements is presented. Note that one alternative is to leave the current 1063

requirements in place. We discuss the intent of the requirements and provide a qualitative 1064

discussion of expected benef its as well as any disadvantages . For each of the possible 1065

modifications, an identifier is provided (such as TRAIN

- 04). These indicators are also used in 1066

Chapter 3, when cost estimates for each modification are presented. For complete details on the 1067

r egulatory changes, see the proposed regulatory text and the NPRM

. 1068

1069



### 2.2.1 Pesticide Safety Training Options 1070

1071

Current pesticide safety training provides information on pesticides, how workers and handlers 1072

may come into contact with them, how to prevent expos ure to pesticides, and what to do if 1073

exposed to pesticides. EPA is considering changes to worker and handler training requirements, 1074

such as the frequency and content, and changes to supporting regulations that include 1075

recordkeeping, training verification, and trainer qualifications

. 1076

1077

Worker Training 1078

1079

Currently, pesticide safety training must be provided to all farmworkers before they enter an area 1080

that has been treated with a pesticide or been under an REI within 30 days. If full training cannot 1081

be provi ded before the first entry into this area, employers must provide an abbreviated training 1082

consisting of basic safety information; training must be complete before the sixth day of entry. 1083

Workers must receive the safety training at least every five years. WPS also specifies training 1084

content and trainer qualifications. Table 2.2

- 1 provides a summary of the current requirements 1085

and the potential changes EPA has considered. 1086

108724 Table 2.2

- 1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Worker Training Requirements. 1088

Curre nt Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Worker Training Grace Period

Untrained workers must

receive, at a minimum,

abbreviated training before

they enter a treated area. F ull

safety training is required

before the sixth day of entry

into the treated area. Untrained workers must receive

full training prior to entry into a

treated area. An exception is

available for a 2

- day grace period

with provision of essential Right

to

- Know information prior to

field entry

. The full pesticide

safe ty training would be required

before the third day of field

entry.

(TRAIN

- 02 ) Require full training prior to

entry into a treated area.

(TRAIN

- 01 )

Worker Training Frequency

Training r equired every five

years Annual t raining required:

(TRAIN

- 0 3 ) Biennial training required:

(TRAIN

- 04 )

or

Annual training with exception

for WPS farms with < 10

employees, no worker turnover,

and no change in application

information

(TRAIN

- 05)

Training Content for Workers

11 basic pesticide safety training

points covered

1. Possible exposures.

2. Hazards.

3. Routes through which

pesticides can enter the body.

4. Signs and symptoms of

poisoning.

5. Emergency first aid for

poisonings.

6. Obtaining medical care.

7. Decontamination procedures.

8. Hazards from chemigation and

drift.

9. Hazards from r esidues on

clothing.

10. Warnings about taking

pesticides or pesticide

containers home.

11. WPS requirements. Expand 11 basic safety training

requirements to include:

• Take home exposure

• Early entry notification

• Understanding h azard

information

– SDS

(TRAIN

- 0 6 ) Further expand 11 basic safety

training requirements to include :

• Take home exposure

• Early entry notification

• Understanding h azard

information

– crop sheets and

product

- specific training

(TRAIN

- 0 7 )25 Curre nt Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Criteria for Trainers of Workers

Training for workers can be

performed by certified

applicators, trainers of

certified applicators

, people

who have completed “Train

the

- trainer” programs , and

handlers Limit worker trainers to those

who:

• Have completed an EPA

approved Train

- the

- Trainer

program or

• Are trainers of certified

applicators

(TRAIN

- 08 ) Limit worker trainers to those

who:

• Have completed an EPA

approved Train

- the

- Trainer

program

(TRAIN

- 09 )

1089

1090

Pesticide Safety Training Grace Period for Workers (TRAIN

- 01 and 02) 1091

1092

The WPS currently permits a five

- day grace period for pesticide safety training of workers 1093

during which time workers may perform activities in pesticide treated areas without receipt of 1094

the full pesticide safety training. Employers are required to provide workers with abbreviated 1095

safety training i n lieu of the full pesticide safety training . After five days of entry into a treated 1096

area, if these workers remain on the establishment and continue work in treated areas, they must 1097

receive full pesticide safety training. This grace period was designed to allow flexibility for 1098

agricultural establishments and was originally implemented because the availability of trainers 1099

was limited when the WPS was revised in 1992. 1100

1101

Options for revision are discussed in detail in Unit XVII.C of the NPRM. 1102

1103

TRAIN

- 01 1104

A pot ential option is to eliminate the grace period and require training of all employee s prior to 1105

their entry into a treated area

. The advantage of this option is that all workers would receive the 1106

full safety training prior to entering treated are as, providing workers with the full information 1107

they need to protect themselves from pesticide exposure. It would also prevent the possib ility 1108

that a worker never receives full training because he or she changes employers without working 1109

more than five da ys at a time, which may happen, for example, during h a rvest season. 1110

Disadvantages of this option are that it reduces the flexibility of growers who hire workers at 1111

different times and that a worker may receive duplicative training if he or she changes 1112

emp loyers. 1113

1114

TRAIN

- 02 1115

The proposed requirement would require training prior to entry into a treated area, but allow an 1116

exception with a two

- day grace period. It would also expand the information provided to 1117

employees during this period. The benefits of this option would be less than for TRAIN

- 01 in 1118

that workers may still be entering treated areas without full training and some workers may never 1119

receive full training. However, the disadvantages are also less because this option retains some 1120

flexibility for gr owers who may hire workers over a couple of days and train them as a group and 1121

it reduces the likelihood that a worker receives multiple trainings. 1122

112326 Pesticide Safety Training Frequency 1124

1125

Currently, pesticide training is required at least every five years. Unit VII.A of the NPRM 1126

provides a complete description of the current and proposed requirements and alternative 1127

options. 1128

1129

TRAIN

- 03/04 1130

The proposed optio n (TRAIN

- 03) would require that agricultural workers receive annual 1131

pesticide safety training, rather t han once every five years as under the existing requirement

. 1132

One alternative considered (TRAIN

- 04) would be to require pesticide safety training every two 1133

years. Peri o dic training i nsures that critical information is ret ain e d; Calabro et al . (2000) show ed 1134

that two years after training, medical students performed no better than untrained students in 1135

following protocols to preve nt infect ion s in themselves and their patients. Thus, retention of 1136

pesticide safety information will be greater with annual train ing than with biennial training, both 1137

of which would be an improvement over the current five year cycle. The expected benefits are 1138

improvements in workers ’ ability to protect t hemselves from pesticide exposure , which in turn 1139

leads to more tangible benefit s as described in Chapter 6

. Annual training is common practice in 1140

other industries and not only for safety. For example, the federal government requires annual 1141

training over subjects as diverse as ethics and cybersecurity. OSHA requires annual training in 1142

workplaces where lead and hazardous chemicals are present. Many agricultural employers are 1143

already providing annual safety training under OSHA requirements and annual training in 1144

pesticide safety would synchronize with these requirements. 1145

1146

TRAIN

- 05 1147

A second alternative, suggested by the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel (EPA, 1148

2008), would be to provide an exception from annual worker training for WPS farms with fewer 1149

than ten employees if there had been no turnover in the work force and no c hanges in the 1150

application information ( e.g. , pesticides used, application rates) since the last worker safety 1151

training. This alternative would reduce the burden on small farms (discussed in Chapter 3). The 1152

exception would only apply to WPS farms that do not change pesticide use patterns, implying 1153

that workers would have, at some point, learned appropriate safety practices. As noted above, 1154

however, people tend to forget safety lessons over time even when the work environment does 1155

not change. 1156

1157

Pesticide Sa fety Training Content 1158

1159

Current pesticide safety training for field workers covers 11 points: 1160

(1) possible ways exposure to pesticide occurs, 1161

(2) hazards associated with exposure, 1162

(3) routes by which pesticides can enter the body, 1163

(4) signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning, 1164

(5) emergency first aid for poisoning, 1165

(6) obtaining medical care, 1166

(7) decontamination procedures, 1167

(8) hazards associated with chemigation and spray drift, 1168

(9) hazards from residues on clothing, 116927 (10) warnings abou t taking pesticides or pesticide containers home, and 1170

(11) WPS requirements that employers must meet ( e.g. , notifications, emergency 1171

assistance, etc. ). 1172

EPA considered several options for expand ing the content of the required worker pesticide safety 1173

training. See the NPRM, Unit VII.E, for details. 1174

1175

TRAIN

- 06/07 1176

Under the proposed requirement, worker training would be expanded to include ways to reduce 1177

take

- home pesticide exposure, worker rights ( e.g. , to hazard information) and protections ( e.g.

, 1178

from retaliation)

, and new WPS requirements. This information addresses problem areas that 1179

have been identified by EPA, state enforcement agencies, and advocacy groups since the last 1180

revisions to WPS in 1992. See Chapter 1. For example, many recent studies have shown the 1181

potential for agricultural pesticide residues to be transported to the home. Training in new WPS 1182

requirements, including information to be provided in case of entry into a field under a REI and 1183

the availability of hazard communication mater ials, will help to insure safety measures are 1184

followed and that workers understand their employer’s responsibilities in reducing exposure to 1185

pesticides. The alternative is identical except for the information on hazard communication. The 1186

proposed option would explain the information provided by the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) (see 1187

HAZCOM

- 02); the alternative would explain how to interpret crop sheets (see HAZCOM

- 04). 1188

1189

Establish Pesticide Safety Trainer Qualifications 1190

1191

Currently, pesticide safety training for workers can be conducted by certified pesticide 1192

applicators, handlers, trainers of certified applicators, and people who have completed an 1193

approved pesticide safety “train

- the

- trainer” program. Please see Unit VII.D of the NPRM for 1194

complete details. 1195

1196

TRA IN

- 08 1197

The proposed option would eliminate training of workers by certified applicators and handl ers. 1198

The benefit of this proposal is that trainers of certified applicators and those having completed a 1199

train

- the

- trainers program would have better and more relevant skills to provide higher quality 1200

training programs, which result in better worker protection. The experience of c ertified 1201

applicators and handlers, while knowledgeable in pesticide application and safety, may have less 1202

relevance for workers where the primary concern is post

- application exposure via contact with 1203

treated plants and other surfaces. Further, without additional preparation, c ertified applicators 1204

and handlers may not have the adult education skills needed to successfully convey the 1205

inf ormation to workers that come from diverse and linguistically and culturally

- distinct 1206

backgrounds. EPA expects that the proposed requirement will ensure that properly qualified 1207

trainers deliver the required pesticide safety training, thereby ensuring that workers receive and 1208

understand the critical pesticide safety information they need to protect themselves and their 1209

families. 1210

1211

TRAIN

- 09 1212

An alternative option EPA considered was to restrict qualified trainers to only those who have 1213

completed an EPA

- approved train

- the

- trainer program. In comparison to the proposed option, 1214

this would put a greater emphasis on education skills tailored to the farmworker community. 121528 1216

Handler Training 1217

1218

WPS provisions for handler safety training are similar to those for workers. Handlers must take 1219

the safety training, covering specified topics, at least every five years. The WPS specifies trainer 1220

qualifications. Table 2.2

- 2 provides a summary of the current requirements for handler training 1221

and the potential changes EPA has cons idered. 1222

1223

Handler training must be provided prior to the employee performing any handling task. No 1224

grace period is permitted. 1225

1226

Table 2.2

- 2

. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Handler Training Requirements. 1227

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Training Frequency

Training r equired every five

years Annual t raining required:

(TRAIN

- 12 ) Biennial training required:

(TRAIN

- 13 )

Training Content for Handlers

13 topics are covered

1. Product label, including

safety information

2. Hazards.

3. Routes through which

pesticides can enter the body.

4. Signs and symptoms of

poisoning.

5. Emergency first aid.

6. Emergency medical care

7. Decontamination procedures

8. Personal Protective

Equipment (PPE)

9. Heat

- related illness issues

10. Safety requirements for

handling, transporting,

storing, and disposing of

pesticides

11. Environmental concerns

12. Warnings about taking

pesticides or their containers

home

13. Regulatory requirements of

handling. Expand 13 topics covered to

include:

• Take home exposure

• Early entry notifica tion and age

limit

• Entry restricted area

requirements

• Requirements for respirator fit

test, training and medical

evaluation

• Hazard information

– SDS

(TRAIN

- 14 ) Expand 13 topics covered to

include:

• Take home exposure

• Early entry notification and age

limit

• Entry restricted area

requirements

• Requirements for proper

respirator fit test, training, and

medical evaluation

• Hazard information

- crop

specific hazard materials

product specific training

(TRAIN

- 15 )

1228

1229

Pesticide Safety Training Frequency 1230

1231

Currently, pe sticide training is required at least every five years. Unit VII.A of the NPRM 1232

provides a complete description of the current and proposed requirements. 1233

123429 TRAIN

- 12/13 1235

As for agricultural workers , EPA is proposing that handlers receive annual pesticide safety 1236

training, rather than once every five years as under the existing requirement (TRAIN

- 12)

. The 1237

alternative (TRAIN

- 13) would require handler training every two years. Similar to training 1238

frequency for workers, peri o dic training i nsures tha t critical information is ret ain e d; Calabro et 1239

al . (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better than 1240

untrained students in following protocols to preve nt infect ion s in themselves and their patients. 1241

Thus, retention of pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with 1242

biennial training, both of which would be an improvement over the current five year cycle. The 1243

expected benefits are improvements in workers ’ ability to protect t hemselves from pe sticide 1244

exposure , which in turn leads to more tangible benefits as described in Chapter 6

. 1245

1246

Pesticide Safety Training Content 1247

1248

Handler training currently covers 14 topics: 1249

(1) p roduct label information

, 1250

(2) hazards, 1251

(3) routes by which pesticides can enter the body, 1252

(4) signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning, 1253

(5) emergency first aid for poisoning, 1254

(6) obtaining medical care, 1255

(7) decontamination procedures, 1256

(8) personal protective equipment, 1257

(9) heat

- related illness iss ues, 1258

(10) s afety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides

, 1259

(11) environmental concerns, 1260

(12) warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home, 1261

(13) r egulatory requirements of pesticide handling, and 1262

(14 ) WPS requirements that employers must meet ( e.g. , notifications, emergency 1263

assistance, etc. ). 1264

EPA considered expand ing the content of the required handler pesticide safety training to include 1265

several additional topics

. See the NPRM, Unit VII.E, for detai ls. 1266

1267

TRAIN

- 14/15 1268

Handler training would be expanded to include ways to reduce take

- home pesticide exposure, 1269

handler rights, and new WPS requirements. Benefits would be similar to those of worker 1270

training

. For handler training, the additional components n ot relevant to workers would be 1271

defining the restricted area during an application and proper procedures if another person ent e r s 1272

the restricted area. Handler pesticide safety training would also include a separate training on 1273

respirator use, fit

- testing of respi rators, and medical evaluation for respirator users. This 1274

information covers risk topics that have been identified by EPA. As with workers, the proposed 1275

option requires handlers to be instructed on the content of the SDS for pesticides while the 1276

alternative would explain the information found in crop sheets. 127730 1278

Pesticide Safety Training Recordkeeping and Verification 1279

1280

Currently there is no requirement for employers to maintain records of when workers and 1281

handlers receive the required pesticide safety training . This makes it difficult for both employers 1282

and enforcement personal to verify that the operation is in compliance with the training 1283

requirements . There is , however, an optional program for states to distribute trai nin g verification 1284

cards supplied by EPA to trainers

. Agricultural employers in participating states can hire 1285

workers and handlers with valid training verification cards, which can reduce their pesticide 1286

safety training burden when a potential employee has a valid card. However, there is no 1287

requirement for a centralized repository or record of the training. Table 2.2

- 3 presents the 1288

potential requirements. Unit VII.B of the NPRM discusses the current and proposed 1289

requirements in detail. 1290

1291

Table 2.2

- 3

. Current , Proposed, and Alternative Training Records Requirements. 1292

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Recordkeeping

No Records Required. Employer to keep records of

worker training for 2 years:

• Names of workers trained,

trainer and employer

• Date of birth of worker

• Date of training

• Training m aterials used

• Acknowledgement of receipt

of training by signature of

worker

• Documentation of trainer’s

qualification

(TRAIN

- 10 ) Employer to keep worker

training records for 5 years:

• Names of workers trained,

trainer and employer

• Date of birth of worker

• Date of training

• Training materials used

• Acknowledgement of receipt

of training by signature of

worker

• Documentation of trainer’s

qualification

(TRAIN

- 11 )

Employer to keep handler

training rec ords for 2 years:

• Names of handlers trained,

trainer and employer

• Date of training

• Date of birth of handler

• Date of training

• Training m aterials used

• Acknowledgement of receipt

of training by signature of

handler

• Documentation of trainer’s

qualification

(TRAIN

- 16 ) Employer to keep handler

training records for 5 years:

• Names of handlers trained,

trainer and employer

• Date of birth of handler

• Date of training

• Training m aterials used

• Acknowledgement of receipt

of training by signature of

handler

(TRAIN

- 17 )31 Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Verification

Voluntary Program Allows for

Training Verification Cards Provide verification in the form

of a copy of the training record to

handler or worker

(TRAIN

- 20 ) Eliminate federal option for

worker and handler training

verification card programs.

(TRAIN

- 18 )

or

Require worker and handler

training verification cards

(TRAIN

- 19)

1293

Recordkeeping 1294

1295

TRAIN

- 10/16 1296

Under one set of options, for worker and for handlers

, employers would be required to document 1297

pesticide safety trainings and maintain the records for two years. Documentation would include 1298

the name of the workers trained, the name of the trainer, the name of the employer, the date of 1299

training, the worker’s or handler’s date of birth , the training materials used, and the employee ’s 1300

signature acknowl edging training. 1301

1302

TRAIN

- 11/17 1303

The second set of options is identical except that records would be maintained for five years. 1304

1305

These proposals benefit both the WPS farms and enforcement agencies by establishing a clear 1306

method for verifying that applicable requirements have been met. A clear advantage of the five

1307

year option over the two

- year retention option is that it matches the current five

- year training 1308

cycle. Even with more frequent trainings (TRAIN

- 03 and 04), a five

- year retention period 1309

provides g reater benefits than a two

- year retention period as enforcement actions may not be 1310

brought immediately. On the other hand, federal and state enforcement agencies have informed 1311

EPA that a two

- year retention period is adequate. 1312

1313

Verification 1314

1315

TRAIN

- 17 1316

Th is potential requirement would elim inate EPA’s optional verification card system. States 1317

would retain the right to develop their own verification card system (to complement the proposed 1318

recordkeeping requirement) if they choose. However, state agencies repo rt that verification 1319

cards are an unreliable method for validation of pesticide safety training because card tampering 1320

and falsification has become common practice. Further, worker and handler training does not 1321

currently include a recordkeeping component therefore the cards cannot, in practice, be verified. 1322

Finally, with the current five

- year training cycle, cards may be lost or damaged such that 1323

employees cannot use them to verify training with a new employer. Thus, under the current 1324

system, verificatio n cards provide little benefit to either the employer or the employee. In fact, 1325

many states do not participate in the system. 1326

132732 TRAIN

- 18 1328

An alternative would be to require employers to provide verification cards to employees when 1329

they are trained. Card di stribution would be conducted by the trainers. EPA would issue cards 1330

with the year and validity period printed on the card to mitigate concerns of falsification of cards. 1331

As noted above, this would have little benefit under the current WPS. Falsified c ards and the 1332

lack of a record keeping would continue to limit the ability of growers to trust the validity and 1333

for enforcement to determine compliance. However, in conjunction with other potential 1334

requirements, there may be advantages. For example, if th e existing grace period for full 1335

pesticide safety training is eliminated or shortened (TRAIN

- 01 and 02), a training verification 1336

system may be very useful for migrant workers who switch employers and could prove they are 1337

in compliance with training require ments. Similarly, with annual or biennial training (TRAIN

1338

03/04 and TRAIN 10/11) and record keeping requirements, cards will be less likely to be lost or 1339

falsified and will be more reliable, potentially reducing the need for employees to take multiple 1340

tra inings and for employers to provide multiple trainings. A major drawback to the card is that a 1341

driver’s license

- sized card will be too small to contain all the required information, and would 1342

therefore require additional effort on the part of the employer to have a complete record. 1343

1344

TRAIN

- 19 1345

The proposed option is similar to TRAIN

- 18 but does not require the use of the verification cards 1346

and would simply require the employer to provide a copy of the training record to the trained 1347

employee. In comparison t o TRAIN

- 18, this requirement would be more convenient for original 1348

employer, who would not have to provide individualized cards to every trained worker. It also 1349

insures that the subsequent employer has all the information for his or her own records. It m ay 1350

be more cumbersome for the employee, however, to carry a sheet or two of paper if moving to 1351

another establishment than to carry a wallet

- sized card. In addition, the potential for fraud, as 1352

with TRAIN

- 18, remains. 1353

1354



### 2.2.2 Hazard Communication Options 1355

1356

U nder current WPS requirements, the agricultural employer must provide employees with 1357

application

- specific information, including the name of the pesticide used. The information is 1358

posted at a central location of the WPS farm and must be displayed for 30 d ays after the REI 1359

expires. EPA is proposing to require additional, pesticide

- specific information be made available 1360

and is also proposing to adjust how application and pesticide

- specific information is presented. 1361

Table 2.2

- 4 presents the current, propose d, and alternative requirements for hazard 1362

communication. 1363

136433 Table 2.2

- 4

. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Hazard Communication Requirements. 1365

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Application Specific Information and Availability

D isplay at a central location , f or

each application,

• location and description of

treated area;

• active ingredient, pr oduct

name, registration number ;

• time and date of application;

• duration of REI Make a copy available on

request

, for each application,

• location and description of

treated area;

• crop or site treated

• active ingredient, product

name, registration number;

• time and date application

started and ended ;

• duration and end date of REI

( HAZCOM

- 01) No change from current

requirements

Pesticide Specific Information and Availability

No requirements for pesticide

specific hazard information Pesticide label and SDS must be

available

( HAZCOM

- 02) Pesticide label must be available

( HAZCOM

- 03)

or

Distribute crop sheet to workers

and/or handlers upon entry into

a treated area

( HAZCOM

- 04)

Retention and Recordk eeping

Application

- specific

i nformation must be displayed

prior to application and for 30

days after the REI Application and pesticide

specific i nformation must be

available no later than the day of

application. Retain records for 2

years

( HAZCOM

- 0 5 ) Application and pesticide

specific i nformation must be

available no later than the day of

application. Retain records for 5

years

( HAZCOM

- 0 6 )

Hazard Information Material

No requirements for use or

production of crop

- specific

hazard materials No change from current

requirements Registrant to develop crop

sheets for each WPS product

and use pattern

(HAZCOM

- 0 7 )

1366

Application Specific Information and Availability 1367

1368

HAZCOM

- 01 1369

Agricultural employers are currently required to post, at a central location, application

- specific 1370

information including the location of the treated area, the pesticide used, the time and date of the 1371

application, and the duration of the REI. The information must be posted before the application 1372

is made and must be displayed for 30 days after the end of the REI. EPA’s proposal, HAZCOM

1373

01, would have the agricultural employer to compile the application

- specific information as 1374

current ly required, but also provide the crop or site treated and end times of the REI. The 1375

addition of the site treated information will help employees and inspectors identify the precise 1376

treated area. Addition of the start and end times for the application, i n conjunction with the date, 1377

would assist in determining the date and time the REI ends. This gives employees more precise 1378

information than just the duration. Further, the proposal would eliminate the central posting 137934 requirement for the pesticide applica tion information and instead make the application 1380

information available upon request by workers, handlers, or their authorized representative. Th is 1381

approach to hazard communication has c e rtain advantages over centralized posting

. Detailed 1382

information on specific products is not necessarily useful on a routine basis. Multiple postings at 1383

a central location may even lead to confusion about specific products used on particular fields 1384

without providing actionable information. The WPS also requires agricultu ral employers to 1385

notify their workers and handlers of any REIs, so specific warnings will occur. Finally, many 1386

central posting areas are exterior gathering locations and postings are subject to loss or damage 1387

by wind and weather. A clear disadvantage is that employees may feel uncomfortable or unable 1388

to request the information from their employer. Unit IX.C of the NPRM provides a more 1389

complete discussion of this requirement. 1390

1391

Pesticide Specific Information and Availability 1392

1393

HAZCOM

- 02 1394

EPA is proposing to require agricultural employers to have a copy of the pesticide label and the 1395

SDS

. The SDS provides standardized source of information on hazards of a particular chemical 1396

or product, symptoms of poisoning, and treatment information while the pesticide labe l informs 1397

on proper procedures for handling or working safely with the product. OSHA require s 1398

employers in other industries provide the SDS to employees and some agriculture employers are 1399

already required by OSHA to keep SDS sheets on file for other chemical hazards other than 1400

pesticides. EPA notes that this information is probably not of general interest to employees, 1401

although there may be cases where an employee might seek information about a specific product. 1402

1403

In practice , the primary benefit of this requirement is likely to be in case of an incident or illness. 1404

Farmworker advocacy organizations have noted the difficulty in obtaining proper medical 1405

treatment for workers and handlers without the relevant information from t he label and

, 1406

especially, the SDS . Information on the chemical and the symptoms of poisoning can be critical 1407

and speed the diagnosis of an illness. The SDS also provides treatment information. 1408

1409

HAZCOM

- 03 1410

An alternative would be to require only the pestic ide label, but not the SDS . This would at least 1411

ensure quick identification of the chemical in case an incident occurred and may help to speed a 1412

proper diagnosis by confirming that symptoms match that of the pesticide. The label, however, 1413

may not indicat e treatment. 1414

1415

HAZCOM

- 04 1416

Under a second a lternative , EPA would retain the central posting requirement and would further 1417

require that crop

- pesticide specific hazard sheets (crop sheets) be distributed to workers and 1418

handlers upon entry into a pesticide

- treat ed area. The advantage of this approach is that it 1419

provides crop and pesticide specific information at the time and place it would be most useful, 1420

reducing the potential for confusion from multiple postings at the central location. However, the 1421

benefits of this detailed information are uncertain. Such detailed information could potentially 1422

confuse workers with complex pesticide application information where the level of hazard is 1423

different for every situation. That could even prove to be counterproducti ve to providing 1424

workers with simple, consistent pesticide safety messages such as respect for the REI whether it 142535 is one day or one week. Moreover, the majority of agricultural workers are non

- English speakers 1426

and literacy rates are low (NAWS, 2005). Thus , providing crop sheets that effectively present 1427

complex information to this diverse community would be challenging. 1428

1429

Retention and Record Keeping 1430

1431

HAZCOM

- 05/06 1432

These provisions would require the WPS farm to maintain the information collected for hazard 1433

co mmunication for two or five years (HAZCOM

- 05 and 06, respectively). See Unit IX.D of the 1434

NPRM. As discussed in the training section above (TRAIN

- 06), the advantage of retaining 1435

records is that it makes the verification of compliance with the regulations much simpler for both 1436

the WPS farm and the enforcement agency. Since the consequences of pesticide exposure may 1437

not be immediately obvious, a longer retention period may be useful. 1438

1439

Hazard Information Material 1440

1441

Currently, most available hazard information is chemical or product specific, e.g. , the SDS . EPA 1442

considered requiring registrants to develop crop and chemical

- specific hazard sheets for all 1443

agricultural products, HAZCOM

- 07. This requirement would support the option discussed 1444

above, HAZCOM

- 04. Thi s information could be valuable, but it is very complex because there 1445

may be different use patterns on different crops ( e.g. , application rates) and different potential for 1446

exposure on different crops ( e.g. , leaf forms influence amount and transferability of residues) and 1447

in different activities ( e.g. , weeding versus harvesting). As discussed in HAZCOM

- 04, it is not 1448

clear that this additional information provides substantial benefits. Pesticide safety educators 1449

have informed EPA that providing very specif ic and complex information for the agricultural 1450

worker community is counterproductive to instilling, through training, the clear and simple 1451

pesticide safety messages that apply under all conditions. 1452

1453



### 2.2. 3 Notification Options 1454

1455

The WPS requires employees to be provided with information about each pesticide application 1456

occurring on a farm or in a nursery or greenhouse. The intent is that employees will know when 1457

precautions covered in the safety training should be implemented. C urrent no tification 1458

requirements include displaying pesticide application and pesticide safety information in a 1459

central location on the establishment, providing warnings of areas under a Restricted Entry 1460

Interval (REI) by posting signs and/or orally inform ing workers, and informing workers enter 1461

areas under a REI about the pesticides used . The WPS also requires certain information 1462

exchanges between the WPS employer and the CPHE employer so that they can provide 1463

appropriate notification to their respective employees

. EPA is considering revising the 1464

notification requirements in three areas: (1) information pertaining to fields under a restricted 1465

entry interval (REI), (2) information on decontamination procedures, and (3) information 1466

transmitted from commerc ial applicators’ employers to the agricultural employer. 1467

146836 Restricted Entry Interval Notification 1469

1470

Current ly, agricultural employers are generally required to provide warnings of areas under a 1471

REI by posting signs and/or orally informing their workers. Wa rnings need not be given to a 1472

particular employee if, from the start of the application to the end of the re

- entry interval, the 1473

employee would not be within one

- fourth mile of the treated area or if the employee is the 1474

handler who applied the pesticide. Further, WPS requires the agricultural employer to inform 1475

workers who are directed into areas under a REI about the hazards related to the pesticides used 1476

unless the worker will have no contact with pesticide

- treated surfaces

. There are currently no 1477

requi rements for documenting compliance with the se notification requirements. 1478

1479

EPA is proposing that warning signs be posted around treated areas under REIs in more 1480

situations. EPA is also proposing that additional risk information be provided in the warning to 1481

workers entering treated areas under an REI and that these warnings be documented to insure 1482

compliance. Table 2.2

- 5 compares the current, proposed, and alternative requirements. 1483

1484

Table 2.2

- 5

. Current, Proposed, and Alternative REI Notification Require ments. 1485

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

REI Notification

Outdoor production: Either oral

notification or post warning

signs unless double notification

required by label Post field with warning signs if

REI is greater than 48 hours ;

either oral notification or signs

for REIs of 48 hours or less

(unless double notification

required)

(NOTIFY

- 01 ) Post field with warning signs if

REI is greater than 72 hours ;

either oral notification or signs

for REIs of 72 hours or less

(unless double notification

required)

(NOTIFY

- 02 )

Indoor production (WPS

Greenhouses): Warning signs

must be posted; additional oral

notification for double

notification products Oral notification allowed if REI

is 4 hours or less

(NOTIFY

- 03) No change f rom current

requirements

No requirements for record

keeping No change from current

requirements Signed acknowledgement of oral

notification retained for 2 years

(NOTIFY

- 04)

or

Signed acknowledgement of oral

notification retained for 5 years

(NOTIFY

- 05)37 Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

REI warning signs

Sign depicts a stern face in a

circle as a warning, with

message : “Keep Out” Stern face in an octagon (stop

sign) shape as warning, with

message : “Entry Restricted”

(NOTIFY

- 06 ) Revise field warning sign to

include:

• Skull and crossbones

• Application information on

the sign (date of application,

REI, product)

(NOTIFY

- 07 )

Post so signs are visible from

usual points of entry into treated

area ( or in corners of field or

other location allowing

maximum visibility ) and near

worker housing Define ‘near’ worker housing as

within 100 feet

(NOTIFY

- 08) Field warning sign placement:

every 100 feet as well as the

usual points of entry

(NOTIFY

- 09 )

Notification to workers entering treated area during REI

(Does not apply to “no contact” situations.)

Agricultural e mployer must

ensure that employee has either

read or been informed of all

labeling requirements related to

human hazards and precautions,

uses PPE as required by the

label, and follows any other

label requ irements regarding

early entry. Oral notification to workers

prior to entry into treated area

during REI:

• Date of entry

• Location of early

- entry area

• Pesticides applied

• Labeling related to human

hazards and precautions

• Dates and times REI begins

and ends

• Exception t hat allows early

entry

• Type of contact permitted with

treated surfaces

• Amount of time worker is

allowed in area

• Required PPE

• Location of safety poster

display

• Location of decontamination

supplies

(NOTIFY

- 10 ) Oral and written notification to

workers prior to entry into

treated area during REI:

• Date of entry

• Location of early

- entry area

• Pesticides applied

• Labeling related to hazard

and precautions

• Dates and times REI begins

and ends

• Exception that allows early

entry

• Type of contact permitted

with treated surfaces

• Amount of time worker is

allowed in area

• Required PPE

• Location of safety poster

display

• Location of decontamination

supplies

(NOTIFY

- 11 )

No requirements for record

keeping Require recordkeeping:

• Notification (see above),

except labeling hazard and

precaution information

• Acknowledge ment of

notification by printed name

and signature of workers

• Retain for 2 years

(NOTIFY

- 1 2 ) Require recordkeeping:

• Notification, except labeling

hazard and precaution

information

• Acknowledge ment of

notification by p rinted name

and signature of workers

• Retain for 5 years

(NOTIFY

- 13 )

148638 REI Notification 1487

1488

Under the current rule, n otification of a treated area under an REI must be provided to workers 1489

by the agricultural e mployer either orally or by posting warning signs at the treated area, except 1490

where the product label requires both. Greenhouses are required to post signs for all 1491

applications. 1492

1493

NOTIFY

- 01 1494

The proposed option would require that warning signs be posted if for pesticide s appli cations 1495

wh e re the REI is greater than 48 hours. See Unit VII.A of the NPRM. The purpose of this 1496

proposed requirement is to provide employees with a visual notification because human memory 1497

can be poor. Entry into a treated area under a REI is the second

- leading cause of pesticide 1498

incidents, following drift from adjacent fields, according to a NIOSH review of available 1499

information (Calvert et al. , 2008). It is unclear how many of these incidents stemmed from 1500

inadvertent entry as opposed to employer

- directed entr y, but it seems likely that many, including 1501

unreported incidents, would stem from poor recall. On farms producing a variety of crops, there 1502

could be several fields treated with different products and remembering which fields should be 1503

avoided could become difficult. Even on less diverse WPS farms, fields may have staggered 1504

planting dates and, therefore, staggered activities, which might include pesticide applications. 1505

Different fields of the same crop but with different REI date could be confusing, espec ially for 1506

long REIs. Recall may be problematic for employers, as well. Employers must notify workers 1507

at the time of the application, but must also remember to notify workers who are not present at 1508

the time when they return to work. The longer the REI, t he harder it is to insure all workers 1509

receive the appropriate notification. 1510

1511

NOTIFY

- 02 1512

An alternative option considered would require posted warning signs if the pesticide applied has 1513

a REI greater than 72 hours. This option provides similar benefits as NOTIFY

- 06, but is clearly 1514

less protective than the proposed option since employees and employers would have to 1515

remember REI information for three days rather than two. 1516

1517

NOTIFY

- 03 1518

EPA is proposing to allow greenhouse operations to notify employees orally if the REI is four 1519

hours or less. In many situations, this will be far simpler than posting signs only to take them 1520

down in a few hours and employees can be expected to remember when and where applications 1521

occur over such a short time interval. 1522

1523

NOTIFY

- 04/0 5 1524

Oral notification is inherently difficult to enforce. A potential mechanism to address this issue is 1525

to require agricultural employers to obtain written acknowledgement of an oral notification. This 1526

record would be kept for two or five years (NOTIFY

- 09 and 10, respectively) for enforcement 1527

purposes. As such, it also serves as proof of compliance for the farm, nursery, forest, or 1528

greenhouse. 1529

153039 REI Warning Signs 1531

1532

The WPS specifies when signs must be posted, the sign content, and the locations required for 1533

posting signs

. 1534

1535

NOTIFY

- 06 1536

Currently, warning signs depict a man with an upraised hand inside a red circle and the words 1537

“Keep Out.” T he proposed option would make replace the red circle with a re d octagon, a 1538

widely

- recognized symbol for stop

. It would a lso change the words “Keep Out” to “Entry 1539

Restricted.” The purpose of the wording change is to more accurately reflect the message that 1540

workers and handlers should generally remain out of the posted area, but that they may enter 1541

under certain conditions t o perform early

- entry tasks as permitted under the WPS. Unit VIII.C 1542

of the NPRM provides a complete discussion of the reasons for the revisions. 1543

1544

NOTIFY

- 07 1545

An alternative option would change the content to a skull and crossbones graphic

, as well as 1546

requir e posting field

- specific information the sign including the date of application, the length of 1547

the REI, and the pesticide product. While the graphic conveys danger, the skull and crossbones 1548

symbol is currently used on toxicity category I and II pesticide products and for field designation 1549

of certain highly hazardous pesticides including fumigants. Widespread use of the graphic for all 1550

pesticides has the disadvantage of diluting the warning for more hazardous cases. The field

1551

specific information may not be particularly useful since the point of the warning is simply to 1552

keep people from entering except under specific circumstances (see ENTRY

- 03 to 06, below) 1553

and those circumstances already require that information about the specific product used be 1554

availab le (see NOTIFY

- 10 and 11). 1555

1556

NOTIFY

- 08 1557

REI warning s igns are now required to be posted where the sign is visible from all usual points 1558

of entry to the treated area or, if there are no clear points of entry, the corners of the treated area 1559

or an area affordi ng maximum visibility. Signs are also required to be placed on each border 1560

with any employee housing adjacent to the treated area. The proposed revision clarifies that the 1561

warning sign must be visible from the housing area if the housing is within 100 fe et of the treated 1562

area. The purpose of the refinement is to provide clarity for employers and state officials. 1563

1564

NOTIFY

- 09 1565

A n alternate pote n tial requirement would specify that warning signs be posted every 100 feet 1566

along the field as well as at the usual points of entry. The advantage of this requirement is that it 1567

would alert employees who may be crossing fields from one part of a farm to another without 1568

following established routes. It is not clear how large the benefits of increased posting would be 1569

s ince good agricultural practices typically preclude walking through fields as that can damage 1570

the plants. 1571

1572

Notification to Workers Performing Early Entry Tasks 1573

1574

Early entry into a treated area under an REI is permitted by the current regulation under certa in 1575

narrow exceptions. These exceptions are for “limited contact”, “no contact”, “short

- term”, 157640 “irrigation” or “agricultural emergency activities.” Except for entry under the “no contact” 1577

e xception , employers must make sure that workers performing early e ntry tasks wear all PPE 1578

required by the label and have either read or been informed of all hazard and safety information 1579

on the pesticide label prior to entry. See the NPRM, Unit IX.B, for details. EPA is also 1580

considering certain revisions to these excep tions; see ENTRY

- 03 to 06, below. 1581

1582

NOTIFY

- 10 1583

As noted above (NOTIFY

- 01), entry into treated areas during the REI is the second most 1584

common factor leading to pesticide incidents (Calvert et al. , 2008)

. Sufficient information is 1585

lacking to determine the proximate cause of entry, but some incidents could have occurred 1586

during employer

- directed entry. Under the proposed option , the early entry notification would 1587

be expanded to include additional safety in formation such as the pesticide applied, the start and 1588

end times of the REI, and the permitted types of contact with treated surfaces. Advocacy 1589

organizations have expressed concern that workers do not recognize the elevated risk from early 1590

entry or unders tand the requirements of the exceptions and therefore may fail to appreciate the 1591

particular importance of complying with the terms of the early

- entry exception. 1592

1593

NOTIFY

- 11 1594

EPA considered requiring agricultural employers to distribute written pesticide haza rd 1595

information ( i.e. , crop sheets) to each worker upon early entry in addition to the oral warnings, as 1596

suggested by Farmworker Justice. The major benefit to workers would be the ability to refer to 1597

the information after the fact, in case, for example, of symptoms arising that may be associated 1598

with pesticide exposure. Written communication can sometimes provide more clarity than 1599

spoken words, which can be misheard or misinterpreted, especially if the employer or employee 1600

is using a second language. On t he other hand, given language differences and the literacy rate 1601

in the farmworker population, it is not clear that written communication is substantially more 1602

effective than oral communication. Receiving written and oral communication simultaneously 1603

can o ften be distracting, reducing the effectiveness of both forms. Finally, farmworkers may not 1604

have a place to save written documentation; according to regulatory staff in Texas and Florida, 1605

such documents often end up scattered in the field. 1606

1607

NOTIFY

- 12/13 1608

These potential provisions would require the agricultural employer to retain a worker

- signed 1609

record that notification was provided prior to early entry. NOTIFY

- 09 would require retention 1610

for two years while NOTIFY

- 10 would require that records be kept for five years. As above, 1611

records help to verify the WPS farms are in compliance. These records can also help in 1612

diagnosis and treatment by identifying workers that entered a treated area under REI if they later 1613

exhibit pesticide poisoning symptoms. 1614

1615

Pestic ide Safety Information Display 1616

1617

The basic safety information display provides a reminder about information from the pesticide 1618

safety training, including steps workers and handlers should follow to protect themselves from 1619

exposure and how to decontaminat e t hemselves if they are exposed. Currently, safety posters are 1620

required to be displayed only at one central location on the WPS farm

. Table 2.2

- 6 presents 1621

current requirements, proposals and alternatives for additional information and displays. C ontact 162241 in formation for emergency medical care is to be included on the poster, among other things. See 1623

Unit XII.B of the NPRM for more detail on the required information. See the NPRM, Unit 1624

XII.A, for more on additional displays. 1625

1626

Table 2.2

- 6

. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Notification Requirements. 1627

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Pesticide Safety Information

Basic pesticide s afety

information display includes

decontamination information

and self

- protecti ve practices Additional basic pesticide s afety

information display content to

include:

• State enforcement agency

contact information

• Medical facility contact

information

(NOTIFY

- 1 4 ) No change from current

requirements

Basic pesticide s afety

information displayed at a

c entral l ocation Additional safety information

display required with worker

decontamination suppl ies

(NOTIFY

- 15 ) Additional display with all field

warning signs

(NOTIFY

- 17 ) Additional s afety information

display with handler

decontamination suppl ies

(NOTIFY

- 1 6 )

1628

NOTIFY

- 14 1629

This proposed requirement would add contact information for the state enforcement agency and 1630

the appropriate medical facility to the display. Information about how to contact enforcement 1631

personnel would enable employees to report violations. Contact information for the medical 1632

facility insures that employees have the ability to call for assistance in case of an accident. 1633

1634

NOTIFY

- 15 1635

Under the proposed option, at least one additional safety information display would be required

, 1636

loc ated when and where worker decontamination suppl ies are made available. The display 1637

would provide essential decontamination information at the time and place it is most needed. 1638

Decontamination procedures are covered in safety training, but they not reinf orced by routine 1639

practice. Thus, a display depicting the appropriate steps to take in case of exposure will 1640

reinforce the training message. 1641

1642

NOTIFY

- 16 1643

This option would also require at least one additional safety information display for handlers and 1644

would be located at the decontamination site(s) typically used for mixing and loading of 1645

pesticides. The potential benefits are similar to those described in NOTIFY

- 15 above. 1646

1647

NOTIFY

- 17 1648

Farmworker organizations suggested two alternate options : requiring addit ional pesticide safety 1649

displays with all posted field warning (REI) signs or at worker changing sites. They noted that 1650

having the pesticide safety poster in multiple places where workers are likely to see it increases 165142 the chances for workers to absorb the messages and to know how to contact emergency 1652

personnel. 1653

1654

Information Exchange between CPHEs and WPS Farms 1655

1656

The WPS requires commercial pesticide handling establishments ( CPHEs ) and agricultural 1657

employers to exchange information about pesticide applicatio ns. The agricultural employer is 1658

required to provide the CPHE with information about treated areas under REIs on the 1659

establishment so that applicators do not inadvertently enter a treated field

. The CPHE is required 1660

to notify the agricultural employer pr ior to making an application so that information, e.g. , about 1661

REIs, can be communicated to the farm’s employees. If there are changes in a scheduled 1662

application, the agricultural employer must be notified. EPA is proposing to revise the 1663

requirement for CPHEs to notify the WPS employer of changes in a pesticide application to 1664

reflect and clarify existing guidance. See Table 2.2

- 7. 1665

1666

Table 2.2

- 7

. Current, Proposed, and Alternative CPHE Notification Requirements. 1667

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Notification to agricultural employer by commercial handler

CPHE employer must notify

agricultural employer prior to

application of:

• the location and description

of the area to be treated;

• date and time of application;

• the product name, active

ingredient and EPA

registration number for the

product,

• the REI,

• whether posting and oral

notification are required

(double notification),

• any other product

- specific

protections for humans from

the labeling

CPHE employer must no tify the

agricultural employer prior to

any changes in the application

Subsequent guidance allows

some flexibility in notification

of changes CPHE employer must notify

agricultural employer prior to

application of:

• the location and description

of the area to be treated;

• date and time of application ;

• estimated time application

ends ;

• the product name, active

ingredient and EPA

registration number for the

product,

• the REI,

• whether posting and oral

notification are required

(double notification),

• any other product

- specific

protections for humans from

the labeling

CPHE employer must notify

agricultural employer of any

changes within 2 hours of end of

application (not required if time

of application changes < 1 hour)

(NOTIFY

- 18 ) No change from current

require ments

1668

NOTIFY

- 18 1669

Under the proposed option , the CPHE would still be required to notify the agricultural employer 1670

of the application information prior to the pesticide application . Notification of a change to the 1671

estimated application end time would be re quired within two hours of the end of the application, 167243 and changes of less than an hour to this timing would not require notification. See Unit X of the 1673

NPRM for details

. This revision largely clarifies and codifies existing guidance that provides 1674

flexib ility for pesticide applications that are often dependent on soil and weather conditions but 1675

that are currently at odds with the wording of the WPS. 1676

1677



### 2.3 Options to Protect Workers and Pesticide Handlers 1678

1679

EPA is considering changes to three areas to improve the protections for workers and handlers 1680

from the adverse effects of pesticides. Proposed changes include establishing minimum age 1681

requirements for certain tasks , restrictions covering entry into and around treated areas , and 1682

changes to the use of certain personal protective equipment (PPE)

. T hese provisions are 1683

intended to reduce worker and handler exposure to pesticides

. 1684

1685



### 2.3.1 Minimum Age Options 1686

1687

Currently, the WPS contains no age restrictions for agricultural employees. Adolescents, 1688

however, may be at greater risk from pesticide exposure because many of their biological and 1689

neurological systems are still developing and are more sensitive to chemical disruption than are 1690

adult systems. Further, ado lescents may pose greater risks for pesticide exposure because they 1691

often take more risks than their adult coworkers. See Chapter 1. In considering age restrictions, 1692

EPA focused on two situations: handling of pesticides including mixing, loading, and ap plying; 1693

and entry into treated fields during the REI. As noted above, there are certain circumstances 1694

under which early entry is allowed so long as proper precautions are taken. Table 2.3

- 1 1695

summarizes the potential restrictions

. The NPRM provides a comp lete description of the 1696

proposed restrictions and alternatives. Unit XII.A discusses the worker restrictions and Unit 1697

XI.B discusses the handler restrictions. 1698

1699

The proposed restrictions would not apply to persons covered by the immediate family 1700

exemption, i.e.

, for children and other family members of the owner/operator of the WPS farm

. 1701

1702

Table 2.3

- 1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Minimum Age 1703

Restrictions. 1704

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement 1 Alternative Requirement

No age restriction on person

performing early entry activities Employee must be 1 6 years of

age to be directed to perform

early entry activities

(AGE

- 01) Employee must be 1 8 years of

age to be directed to perform

early entry activities

(AGE

- 02)

No age restriction on person

performing handling activities Employee must be 1 6 years of

age to perform handler duties

(AGE

- 03) Employee must be 1 8 years of

age to perform handler duties

(AGE

- 04)

1 Restriction does not apply to persons covered by the immediate family exemption. 1705

1706

AGE

- 01/03 1707

EPA is proposing to require agricultural employers to ensure that workers ent e r ing fields during 1708

a REI and pesticide handlers are at least 1 6 years of age. As explained in more detail in Chapter s 1709

1 and 6 , studies have suggest e d that the adverse effects of pesticides may be greater on children 171044 and young adults than for mature individuals because developing systems are more sensitive 1711

(EPA, 2002))

. Thus, precluding adolescents from engaging in tasks that could engender the 1712

highes t levels of exposure could have substantial benefits on their health. Further, young adults 1713

may take more risks than older workers because they may be less capable of evaluating the 1714

consequences of their decisions (Young and Rischetielli, 2006))

. Thus, t hey may be less likely 1715

to follow directions and use PPE properly and in appropriate situations. In the case of handlers, 1716

adolescents may not follow all label restrictions because they do not fully comprehend the 1717

potential impacts to themselves, others, an d the environment. EPA estimates that there are about 1718

19,000 workers under the age of 16 within the total farm work force, with as many as 2,300 1719

involved in early entry activities each year. There are likely about 1,0 00 of these adolescent 1720

workers who en gage in pesticide handling activities on farm and it is extremely unlikely that 1721

youths under 16 are employed as handlers by CPHEs. 1722

1723

AGE 02/04 1724

Alternatively, EPA considered a minimum age requirement of 1 8 years . This alternative would 1725

provide greater benef its than would a minimum age of 1 6 years due to the number of adolescents 1726

covered . Based on the National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS) (DoL, 2005), EPA 1727

estimates there are nearly 87,000 adolescents between 16 and 17 years of age employed as farm 1728

worke rs in addition to the 19,000 workers under the age of 16

. Around 1 8

, 3 00 adolescent 1729

workers might engage in early entry activities each year and 5,6 00 might act as handlers on 1730

occasion

, including 4,600 between 17 and 18 years of age

. Older youths, however, may be less 1731

sensitive to exposure and less likely to take risks than their younger counterparts

. 1732

1733



### 2.3. 2 Options for Entry Restrictions 1734

1735

Entry into areas being treated or under an REI pose risks and EPA considered several revisions 1736

to the WPS to bolster protections for agricultural workers and handlers. The current 1737

requirements and potential changes are shown in Table 2. 3

- 2 . In some cases, the proposed 1738

revisions simply clarify conditions under which a person may be in or near a treat ed area duri ng 1739

the restricted interval. 1740

1741

Table 2.3

- 2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Entry Restrictions. 1742

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Entry During Application

During a pesticide application in

nurseries and greenhouses

, the

employer must not allow or

direct any persons, except

trained and equipped handlers

,

to enter the entry restricted area

adjacent to the treatment area

. During a pesticide application

on farms and forests, as well as

nurserie s and greenhouses, t he

employer must not allow or

direct any persons, except

trained and equipped handlers,

to enter the entry restricted area

adjacent to the treated area

(ENTRY

- 01) No change from current

requirements

Handler must assure pesticide is

not applied so as to contact any

worker or other person, other

than a trained and equipped In addition to current

requirement, h andlers must

cease application if a person

enters the entry restricted area No change from current

requirements45 Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

handler

. (ENTRY

- 02)

Entry During REI

Workers may enter a treated

area during a REI

, if label

required protections are

provided , for

• no contact activities

• short term activities (≤ 1

hour) not including hand

labor

• limited contact activities not

including hand labor (≤ 8

hours)

• irrigation activities not

including hand labor (≤ 8

hours)

• agricultural emergencies

including hand labor (no time

limit) For agricultural emergencies

where a double notification

product has been used , entry

must not exceed 4 hours in a 24

hour period

(ENTRY

- 03) For agricultural emergencies

where a double notification

product has been used , entry

must not exceed 8 hours in a 24

hour period

(ENTRY

- 04)

or

Exceptions would no longer be

allowed

(ENTRY

- 06)

Cholinesterase Inhibition

No restrictions on handlers No change from current

requirements Monitor for cholinesterase

inhibition and prohibit further

activity with cholinesterase

inhibiting products if inhibition

is found

(ENTRY

- 07)

or

Limit time handling

cholinesterase

- inhibiting

products to 30 hours in 30 days

(ENTRY

- 08)

1743

Entry during Application 1744

1745

The current requirements limit contact between workers and pesticides by prohibiting entry into 1746

an area during the application of a pesticide

. Another WPS req uirement, currently limited to 1747

nurseries and greenhouses, establishes an “entry restricted area” beyond the treated area to limit 1748

exposure from drift. 1749

1750

ENTRY

- 01 1751

The proposed requirement would establish an “entry restricted area” of 25 to 100 feet around th e 1752

area being treated, depending on the method of application , on farms and forestry operations, 1753

similar to the area already required in nurseries and greenhouses . T he size of the restricted area 1754

is based on th e pesticide application method because some me thods, such as aerial applications, 1755

are more likely to result in drift than others, such as in

- furrow applications. The entry restricted 1756

area is limited to property under control of the employer. See the NPRM, Unit XII.E, for details. 175746 This “ entry restricted area ” would protect workers

, other employee s , and potentially the public in 1758

U

- Pick operations from pesticide drift. See Chapter 1. 1759

1760

ENTRY

- 02 1761

The current rule requires handlers to “assure that no pesticide is applied so as to contact, either 1762

directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and 1763

equipped handler.” The proposed re quirement would strengthen this by adding a provision that 1764

states the handler must “immediately cease or suspend application i f any worker or other person, 1765

other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler, is in the treated or entry restricted 1766

area

. ” See Unit XI.A of the NPRM for a complete description of the requirement. The benefit 1767

of the revision is to clarify the ac tion the handler must take if someone is in the treatment area

. 1768

1769

Together, t he se proposed options (ENTRY

- 01 and 02) should result in reduced incidents of 1770

worker exposure through unintentional contact during application , which is the second

- leading 1771

cause of pesticide incidents according to the analysis of occupational incident data in Calvert 1772

(2008)

. 1773

1774



### Entry During REI 1775

1776

Entry into an area recently treated with pesticides carries with it the risk of increased exposure to 1777

potentially unsafe levels of pesticid e residues

. Agricultural pesticide labels establish crop

1778

specific requirements for the REI

– the time after the end of an application during which worker 1779

entry is restricted

– based on the expected level and degradation of residues on treated surfaces 1780

and the transferability of residues during worker activities. The REI is based on the activity 1781

resulting in the highest potential exposure given any restrictions on the timing the pesticide can 1782

be used. For example, if applications are prohibited in the lat ter part of the season, EPA would 1783

not be concerned about exposure during harvest . Early entry into the treated area during the REI 1784

is generally prohibited, except under narrow circumstances to perform tasks considered critical 1785

for agricultural production. For each of the exceptions, details on the types of contact and tasks 1786

that are permitted, the length of time the worker may be in the treated area (see Table 2.3

- 2)

, 1787

PPE required, and additional employer requirements are specified in the rule to protect the 1788

workers. However, for “agricultural emergencies,” the WPS does not currently specify the 1789

length of time an individual worker may be in the treated area. 1790

1791

ENTRY

- 03 1792

For an agricultural emergency, the proposal would restrict the amount of time workers ca n spend 1793

in the treated area when a double notification pesticide has been used

. Please see the NPRM, 1794

Unit XII.D for details. Products require double

- notification warnings (both oral and sign 1795

warnings) due to their relatively high toxicity. The benefit o f the restriction is to limit the 1796

duration of any exposure, which increases the likelihood that appropriate PPE will be maintained 1797

while the worker is in the field. The four

- hour limit is half the allowed time for the irrigation and 1798

limited contact early entry exceptions because the agricultural emergency exception permits 1799

hand labor, which results in more contact with surfaces like foliage where residues are likely to 1800

adhere. 1801

1802

ENTRY

- 04 180347 An alternative would also restrict time allowed, but would allow up to eight hours in a treated 1804

area under an REI in any twenty

- four hour period. This option would impose the same time limit 1805

as the irrigation and limited contact exceptions to the REI, which provides simplicity in the 1806

requirements. However, given that hand labor is allowed under the agricultural emergency 1807

exception, a similar time limit would be less protective for workers than the existing time limits 1808

on other exceptions. 1809

1810

ENTRY

- 06 1811

EPA also considered eliminating early entry exceptions , as suggested by some advocacy groups

. 1812

This option provides more protection for workers than under the current WPS or proposed 1813

potential revisions by simply eliminating the potential for exposure. However, except for the 1814

agricultural emergency exception, the permitted activi ties generally result in lower levels of 1815

exposure than the activities upon which the REIs are established ( e.g. , thinning or hand 1816

harvesting). Thus, the risks of entry for these purposes, and therefore the benefits of barring 1817

entry, may be less than they first appear. 1818

1819

Cholinesterase Inhibition 1820

1821

Cholinesterase (ChE) is an enzyme that breaks down the chemical acetylcholine, which transmits 1822

signals across nerve synapses. When cholinesterase is inhibited overstimulation and exhaustion 1823

of nerves, muscles, and glands can occur and result in illness

. Organophosphate (OP) and 1824

carbamate pesticides

, widely used in agriculture , are known inhibitors of ChE . Agricultural 1825

handlers who mix, load and apply these pesticides may be at risk of ChE inhibition. 1826

1827

ENTRY

- 07 1828

One option considered to address this issue is to require medical monitoring of ChE inhibition as 1829

is done in Washington State. In that state, handlers working with toxicity category I and II OPs 1830

and carbamates are monitored for ChE inhibition. When indic ation of inhibition is found, 1831

handler exposure to such pesticides is restricted for a period of time

. C hE levels can be 1832

determined through a blood test, but there is no normal range for cholinesterase levels to which 1833

the test can be compared. Thus, a mon itoring program would require an initial sample to 1834

establish the handler’s own pre

- exposure baseline level and potentially multiple follow

- up tests 1835

to measure inhibition. 1836

1837

The purpose of a monitoring program is to identify handlers who have reached a level of 1838

exposure that has an observable effect and protect them from further exposure. An ancillary 1839

benefit, demonstrated by the Washington program, is that it can identify farms and individual 1840

handlers who may need to alter their practices to reduce exp osure in general. A disadvantage of 1841

such a program is that it may be considered intrusive by the individual handler. In 2007, 1842

Washington reports that over eight percent of handlers who handled ChE

- inhibiting pesticides 1843

declined to participate in the prog ram; others may have felt obliged to participate by their 1844

employers. 1845

1846

ENTRY

- 08 1847

Another option would be to limit the time a handler could work with ChE

- inhibiting pesticides to 1848

30 hours in any 30 day period. This requirement would be similar to the approac h California 184948 developed, which requires a blood test if an employee handles ChE

- inhibiting pesticides more 1850

than the limit. Most employers responded by insuring handlers stayed below the point that 1851

would trigger monitoring. The benefits of such a requireme nt arise because cumulative effects 1852

would be avoided. ChE inhibition is reversible, but repeated exposure before levels have 1853

returned to normal will result in greater and greater inhibition. However, there is no scientific 1854

basis for the 30 hour in 30 day limit. Thus, the actual benefits of such a limit are uncertain. 1855

1856

A complete discussion of these options can be found in Unit XVII of the NPRM. 1857

1858



### 2.3.3 Options for Personal Protective Equipment 1859

1860

Some risks of concern for exposure to pesticides may be addre ssed with the use of personal 1861

protective equipment (PPE) to reduce dermal

, inhalation, and ocular exposure and pesticide 1862

labels may require the use of PPE

. The WPS establishes generic requirements designed to 1863

ensure that PPE are cleaned and maintained, us ed properly and at the appropriate time. This is 1864

one way WPS complements the pesticide label, as discussed in Section 2.1.2. Potential revisions 1865

to the WPS, shown in Table 2.3

- 3 , are evaluated as ways to further improve safety. 1866

1867

Table 2.3

- 3. Current, P roposed, and Alternative Requirements for Personal Protective 1868

Equipment 1869

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Handler employer is required to

confirm respirator fit. Require fit test, training and

medical evaluation conforming

to OSHA requirements; keep

records

(PPE

- 01) No change from current

requirements

Employers are exempt from

certain WPS r equirements

regarding employees under the

supervision of Certified Crop

Adv isor s Eliminate exemption for WPS

employe r s

(PPE

- 02 )

and

Eliminate exemption for

employers of commercial

advising services

( PPE

- 03) No change from current

requirements

Substitution of closed syste m for

PPE while mixing/loading

pesticides. Define closed system and

require records of system

maintenance.

(PPE

- 04) No change from current

requirements

Contaminated PPE must be

disposed properly Contaminated PPE must be

rendered unwearable and

disposed properly

(PPE

- 05) No change from current

requirements

1870

PPE

- 01 1871

The current WPS only require s that a respirator be appropriate for the pesticide applied and that 1872

the employer of the handler ensure that the respirator fits correctly. The proposal would 1873

establish requirements for annual respirator fit testing, tr aining of the respirator wearer, and 187449 medical evaluation for handlers who must use a respirator. This revision incorporates OSHA 1875

requirements that apply to workers in other industries. See Unit XVI.E of the NPRM. This 1876

requirement will reduce the potentia l for exposures th a t occu r from poor fit. The respirator 1877

training provides handlers with the information to recognize respirator failure and to identify 1878

when filters need replacement. T he medical evaluation is a simple questionnaire or interview to 1879

identify any health problems that might be exacerbated by the use of a respirator, which will help 1880

handlers determine if they can safely wear the device. For the employer, the revision would also 1881

clarify what is required to ensure proper fit for his o r her employee. Finally, as noted with 1882

similar requirements, the record

- keeping provision helps to verify compliance. 1883

1884

PPE

- 02/03 1885

The WPS exempts the agricultural employer from complying with some requirements , including 1886

provision of label

- required PPE, fo r employees who are certified crop advisors (CCA) and 1887

employees working under the supervision of a CCA

. This exemption is also extended to 1888

commercial crop advisory services, including employees working under the supervision of 1889

CCAs. The proposed r evision s eliminate those exemptions for WPS employees (PPE

- 02) and 1890

commercial service employees (PPE

- 03) working under the supervision of CCAs. See Unit 1891

XVIII.B of the NPRM. The benefit of this revision is to protect employees who may not be fully 1892

trained and m ay be unable to make appropriate judgments regarding personal risk, even with 1893

instruction from a CCA. 1894

1895

PPE

- 04 1896

Under the current regulations

, a closed mixing and loading system may be substituted for label

1897

required PPE. A closed system , under the current rule, is simply defined as “a properly 1898

functioning system that encloses the pesticide to prevent it from contacting handlers or other 1899

persons.” This definition lacks specificity. 1900

1901

If a health hazard cannot be removed from the workplace, there are three ca tegories of m ethods 1902

to control the hazards according to industrial hygienists: engineering controls, administrative 1903

controls

, and personal protective equipment. E ngineering controls should be the first line of 1904

defense whenever feasible (Plog, 1996). Clo sed systems are considered an engineering control 1905

method. They are designed to prevent human exposure and do not require human intervention to 1906

eliminate exposure

. Closed systems re duce the human decision

- making element from the 1907

process so mistakes are no t as likely. In contrast, PPE is subject to human error: it may be worn 1908

incorrectly or removed if it becomes uncomfortable, e.g. , in hot weather. A dditionally, PPE only 1909

protects the wearer; other persons in the area may still be exposed. However, t h e s ubstitution of 1910

a closed system for PPE is only desirable if the closed system is designed and maintained well. 1911

1912

The proposed revision helps to ensure these benefits by establishing a clear definition of the 1913

requirements that constitute a closed system, whi ch is currently lacking. The lack of clear 1914

standards means that some closed systems are inadequate and provide less protection than use of 1915

PPE. Details can be found in the NPRM, Unit XVI.B. Record keeping of system maintenance 1916

would help to verify compl iance with standards. Ultimately, t he beneficiaries of the changes are 1917

handlers, including self

- employed handlers (family farmers and commercial applicators) who 1918

will be assured that the closed system prov i de s protection to minimize exposure

. 1919

192050 PPE

- 05 1921

Damaged or contaminated PPE must be disposed of properly. A proposed revision to the WPS 1922

would clarify that contaminated PPE must be rendered unwearable as part of proper disposal. 1923

That is, if items like gloves or overalls must be discarded due to contam ination with a pesticide, 1924

but are otherwise intact, the agricultural employer must ensure that the items cannot be used 1925

again, e.g. , by cutting them. This will prevent other employees, family members, or anyone who 1926

might find them from inadvertently using them and being exposed to the residues. 1927

1928



### 2.4 Options to Mitigate the Effects of Pesticide Exposure 1929

1930

EPA is considering regulatory options to improve emergency assistance for workers and handlers 1931

who may have been made ill from exposure to pesticides. Most of these proposals clarify the 1932

requirements for the provision o f decontamination supplies and of em ergency medical response 1933

in case of exposure

. 1934

1935



### 2.4. 1 Decontamination Supply Options 1936

1937

The current WPS requirement establishes that soap, “enough” water, and towels be made 1938

available for routine washing and emergency eye flushing for workers. The term “enou gh,” 1939

however, is not defined in the WPS, although EPA has subsequently provided guidance (EPA, 1940

2006). Table 2.4

- 2 presents the options EPA considered for requirements to clarify the quantity 1941

of water that must be available to mitigate exposure s to workers and handlers

. 1942

1943

Table 2.4

- 2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Decontamination 1944

Supplies. 1945

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Decontamination Supplies for Workers

Provide “ enough ” (1 gallon) water

per worker for routine washing and

emergency eye flushing Provide 1 gallon of water per

worker for routine washing

and emergency eye flushing.

(SUPPLY

- 01) No change from current

requirements

Provide “sufficient” water (1 gallon)

per early entry worker for th orough

washing; provide 1 pint water for eye

flushing as required Provide 3 gallons of water per

early entry worker for

thorough washing; provide 1

pint water for eye flushing as

required

(SUPPLY

- 02) No change from current

requirements51 Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

Decontamination Supplies for Handlers

Provide “ enough ” decontamination

water per handler Three gallons per handler for

routine hand washing

, emergency eye flushing, and

washing entire body in case

of emergency.

(SUPPLY

- 03) Showers required at

permanent mix/load sites

(SUPPLY

- 04)

All permanent mix/load sites

require sufficient running

water to flush eyes for 15

minutes at 1.5 L/min.

whenever a product requiring

handler eye protection is

being used

(SUPPLY

- 05) Portable eye wash stations

required at all mix/load sites

(SUPPLY

- 06)

1946

Decontamination Supplies for Workers 1947

1948

The current WPS regulations require that workers have access to water, soap, and single

- use 1949

towels for washing when a pesticide covered by the regulation has been used or an REI has been 1950

in effect in the last 30 days and workers may contact anything that has been treated with the 1951

pesticide. EPA has issued guidance defining “enough” water to be one gallon per worker. 1952

1953

SUPPLY

- 01 1954

The proposed revision would specify that employers must p rovide one gallon of water per 1955

worker for routine washing and emergency eye flushing. This codifies existing guidance and the 1956

benefit of the provision is simply to provide regulatory clarity for employers and enforcement 1957

agencies. See Unit XIV.C of the NPRM for details. 1958

1959

SUP PLY

- 02 1960

The proposed revision would specify that employers must p rovide three gallons of water per 1961

worker engaged in any early entry activity, i.e. , in a field under a REI. See the NPRM, Unit 1962

XII.C, for all requirements. This provision provides regulatory clarity, but it also increases the 1963

amount of water available for thorough washing comparable to the requirement for handlers

. 1964

More water availab le for early entry activities is important due to the greater potential for 1965

exposure and for higher levels of exposure than in routine activities. 1966

1967

Decontamination Supplies for Handlers 1968

1969

The current WPS regulations require that handlers have access to wate r, soap, and single

- use 1970

towels for routine washing and emergency eye flushing

. EPA has issued guidance defining 1971

“enough” water to be three gallons per handler. Current regulations also require that handlers 1972

carry one pint of water for emergency eyewash w hen the label requires protective eyewear

. 1973

Handler decontamination supplies must be available during any handling activity. 1974

197552 SUPPLY

- 03 1976

This revision would specify that the employer must p rovide three gallons per handler for routine 1977

washing, emergency eye flushing, and washing entire body in case of emergency. See Unit 1978

XIV.A of the NPRM for all required decontamination supplies. As with SUPPLY

- 01, this 1979

codifies existing guidance and the benefit of the provision is simply to provide regulatory clarity 1980

for employers and enforcement agencies. 1981

1982

SUPPLY

- 04 1983

An alternative is to require that showers be available for handlers. Showers could provide 1984

substantial benefits, given that handlers may be mixing and loading large quantities of pesticides, 1985

including con centrated solutions. Secondary benefits would be the availability of showers that 1986

could be used on a routine basis by both handlers and workers to reduce residues that they might 1987

otherwise transport home. These secondary benefits may be quite small, howe ver, as discussions 1988

with field personnel suggest that very few employees would avail themselves of shower facilities 1989

on a routine basis. See the NPRM, Unit XIV.D, for more information. 1990

1991

SUPPLY

- 05 1992

This proposed potential requirement would specify that perm anent mixing and loading sites be 1993

supplied with sufficient running water to flush eyes for fifteen minutes at 1.5 liters per minute. 1994

This amount of water is consistent with EPA guidelines, and is also the minimum required 1995

American National Standards Insti tute ( ANSI ) standard Z358.1

- 1990. See Unit XIV.C of the 1996

NPRM for a complete description of the proposal. The requirement is intended to provide 1997

handlers with water to immediately flush their eyes in the case of exposure to pesticides. 1998

Handlers face a ri sk of exposure to concentrated pesticides as they pour, dilute , and load them 1999

prior to application and for which one pint of water would be insufficient

. 2000

2001

SUPPLY

- 06 2002

A similar requirement would require portable eyewash stations at all mixing/loading sites, not 2003

just the permanent sites. The benefits of this option would be somewhat higher than for 2004

SUPPLY

- 05 since it would cover sites other than those permanently dedicated for mixing 2005

pesticides. However, reports from state authorities indicate that the stati ons can be difficult to 2006

maintain and keep clean. Bacteria may become problematic. See the NPRM, Unit XIV.C, for a 2007

complete discussion. 2008

2009



### 2.4. 2 Options for Emergency Response 2010

2011

Table 2.4

- 1 presents the options EPA considered for emergency response. These a re explained 2012

more fully in Unit XV.E of the NPRM. Current regulations require that transportation to an 2013

emergency medical facility and the provision of information about the pesticide for medical 2014

personnel must be “prompt,” but the regulations do not defi ne “prompt.” 2015

201653 Table 2.4

- 1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirements for Emergency Response 2017

Provisions. 2018

Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Alternative Requirement

“Prompt” provision of transportation,

and obtainable information on

product name, EPA registration

number, active ingredients, and

medical information (symptoms,

antidote, etc. ) , circumstances of

exposure to the pesticide for

agricultural workers Provision of emergency

transportation and of SDS or

label or comparable

infor mation to medical

personnel or the injured

person within 30 minutes

(EMERG

- 01) Provision of same within 60

minutes

(EMERG

- 02)

“Prompt” provision of transportation,

and obtainable information on the

product name, EPA registration

number, active ingredients, and

medical information, circumstances

of handling of and exposure to the

pesticide for pesticide handlers Provision of emergency

transportation and of SDS or

label or comparable

information to medical

personnel or the injured

person within 30 minutes

(EMERG

- 03) Provision within 60 minutes

(EMERG

- 04)

2019

EMERG

- 01/03 2020

EPA is proposing that transportation to a medical facility and pesticide information be provided 2021

within 30 minutes of any incident involving agricultural workers (EMERG

- 01) or pesticide 2022

handlers (EMERG

- 03) . Without a formal definition of “prompt” it is difficult for agricultural 2023

employers and inspectors to be sure of compliance. Clarification of the term “prompt” is 2024

intended to ensure that workers and handlers receive transpor t for medical treatment for an 2025

emergency that may be related to pesticide exposure in a timely manner. 2026

2027

In addition to transportation, the proposal also clarifies the time for which pesticide information 2028

such as the label and SDS are provided to the inju red person or health care providers , who may 2029

need this information to determin e proper treatment. This is valuable because providing medical 2030

personnel with information about the pesticide symptoms and their treatment in a timely manner 2031

is critical in redu cing the adverse effects of exposures. 2032

2033

EMERG

- 02/04 2034

The alternative considered was to define “prompt” as 60 minutes. In terms of clarifying the 2035

regulations, the benefits are similar to the proposal. However, the longer time frame would 2036

clearly provide le ss benefit to the worker than if transportation and medical information is 2037

provided within 30 minutes. 2038

2039

This chapter presented the proposed revisions to the WPS and key alternatives considered by the 2040

Agency. It described the benefits anticipated from the revisions, which are generally the 2041

provision of more and better information at appropriate times and places, of improved protection 2042

by reducing potential exposure for high

- risk situations, and of more rapid and complete 2043

mitigation of exposures if they occu r. Ultimately, these changes will lead to fewer acute 2044

incidents and, more generally, to lower levels of pesticide exposure over time. 2045

204654 The next chapter estimates the cost of the potential requirements and Chapter 4 provides a 2047

discussion of the relative co sts and benefits of the alternatives. 2048

204955 

## Chapter 3. Cost Analysis, Regulatory Options 2050

2051

This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the incremental cost of potential changes to the worker 2052

protection standards that the Agency considered. The incremental cost i s defined as the 2053

difference between the cost of complying with the potential requirement and the cost of 2054

complying with the current requirement. These costs, together with the benefits of the potential 2055

requirements as discussed in Chapter 2, help to infor m EPA’s selection of requirements that are 2056

being proposed. The relative costs and benefits of alternative requirements are discussed in 2057

Chapter 4. Chapter 5 then estimates the incremental cost of all the proposed requirements, 2058

considering how they may in teract, and Chapter 6 presents the benefits of the proposed revisions 2059

in terms of the ultimate outcome on human health and the environment. 2060

2061

These cost estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty due to the diversity among farms and 2062

the lack of data regarding many current practices and the effect of the proposed requirements. 2063

We necessarily rely on averages and/or information on ‘typical’ practices when, in fact, there is 2064

great diversity in pest pressure and the use of pesticides across the agricultural sector. EPA has, 2065

therefore, made a number of assumptions based on experience by EPA staff in the field and on 2066

conversations with state regulators and other stakeholders. While assumptions are made 2067

regarding the average or typical, in pra ctice, EPA has tended to use values that are probably 2068

more indicative of high and frequent pesticide use than would be typical for many farms

. EPA 2069

has also tended to assume that farms are in full compliance with current regulations and will be 2070

in full com pliance with the proposed regulations. This is clearly not the case; state authorities 2071

conduct inspections of farms and find violations. However, inspections are not conducted 2072

randomly across all potentially regulated establishments; many inspections are the result of 2073

specific complaints. As a result, the information on violations do es not provide meaningful 2074

information on compliance rates. 2075

2076

As a result of these assumptions , the costs may be overestimated, particularly for the overall 2077

regulatory burden o f the WPS in the baseline and under the proposed requirements. However, 2078

because m any of the assumptions apply to both the baseline and the proposed rule, they may 2079

have little effect on the estimate of the incremental cost or lead to an overestimate of inc remental 2080

cost . Where feasible, we have examined the effect of alternative assumptions

. 2081

2082



### 3.1 Overview 2083

2084

As discussed in Chapter 1 (Section 1.4), the potential revisions to the Worker Protection 2085

Standard (WPS) will affect certain farms, nurseries, greenhouse s, forestry operations, and 2086

commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs). For simplicity, we use the term “WPS 2087

farm” to refer to farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that are subject to the WPS. Forestry 2088

operations are not analyzed quantitatively; w ith the exception of tree nurseries, pesticide use 2089

patterns in forestry operations will not typically trigger most WPS provisions such as training 2090

and notification. Generally speaking, the revisions would require owners/operators of these 2091

establishments t o devote resources to actions meant to inform workers of the risks associated 2092

with pesticide use, to protect workers from risks, or to mitigate effects in case of exposure. EPA 2093

estimates the cost of these requirements in terms of the value of the time and materials expended 2094

to comply. Most of the cost is in terms of time, not direct out

- of

- pocket expenses. 209556 2096

In this analysis, EPA considers a number of different actors who may be required to allocate 2097

their time or make expenditures. Some activities or expe nditures are conducted by the 2098

management of the WPS farm or CPHE. The nature of these activities may vary by certain 2099

characteristics of the establishment, including its size and primary type of crop produced. Other 2100

activities require time from employees, who are divided into two groups: workers and handlers. 2101

Workers are farm employees who engage in hand labor activities relating to the production of an 2102

agricultural commodity, including crops, nursery material, ornamentals, and forestry products. 2103

Hand l abor activities include such tasks as harvesting, weeding, thinning, trimming, and girdling. 2104

Handlers are those employees who work directly with pesticides, e.g. , to mix, load, and/or apply 2105

pesticides, and may be employed by WPS farms or by CPHEs. Note that WPS handlers are 2106

typically workers as well, as they will often engage in production activities that do not entail 2107

handling pesticides. Whether an employee is considered a worker or a handler under the rule 2108

depends on the nature of the activ ity in whi ch they are engaged at a specific point in time. 2109

2110

Federal requirements apply nationally, but states may enact additional measures. Thus, when 2111

considering the impact of new federal standards, EPA must take into account existing state 2112

measures. Section 3.2 explains the approach taken for estimating the state

- level baseline against 2113

which to measure the impact of potential requirements. Section 3.3 presents the estimation of 2114

cost for all the potential requirements that EPA considered, as explained in Chapter 2. This 2115

chapter estimates the costs of individual components and alternatives. Chapter 5 estimates the 2116

cost of the proposed rule as well as analyzes potential impacts on employment and on small 2117

businesses. 2118

2119



### 3.2. Regional Groupings 2120

2121

To estimate the impac t to the affected industries of the proposed regulatory enhancements to the 2122

WPS, EPA established a regulatory baseline. Current federal requirements establish minimum 2123

standards, but states, as well as other jurisdictions including Puerto Rico, tribes, and territories, 2124

could have more stringent requirements than the current federal standards. Thus, the regulatory 2125

baseline is based on the current state, tribal and territory requirements rather than the federal 2126

requirements. To reduce the analytical complex ity, EPA divided the jurisdictions into nine 2127

regions of the country. 2128

2129

Table 3.2

- 1 shows the regions and the states that were selected for the baseline analysis, as well 2130

as the other jurisdictions they represent. The majority of the regions were defined by geographic 2131

location and the nature of the agricultural production within these areas. For example, the South 2132

region, represented by Arkansas, is based almost exclusively on the location of the states in this 2133

region and the agricultural production found i n this region with livestock, cotton, and tobacco 2134

accounting for the highest value throughout the region. The regions represented by New York, 2135

Washington, Iowa, Ohio and Colorado were constituted in the same way. The region 2136

represented by Texas is based primarily on a similar dominant agricultural system, i.e. , extensive 2137

livestock production, rather than geographical continuity. EPA also considered similarities in 2138

worker activities in constructing the regions. Florida and Hawaii, for example, were place d 2139

together based on the nature of agricultural production in these two states, which is highlighted 2140

by a variety of fruit and vegetable crops with relatively long production seasons due to the 214157 warmer, subtropical climate, and the reliance on hand labor in agricultural production. 2142

California is its own region due to the size and diversity of its agricultural production and the 2143

state’s more stringent worker protection standards relative to the current federal standards and 2144

other states’ requirements. 2145

2146

Table 3.2

- 1. Jurisdictions Included in Regional Groups. 2147

Region Representative State Other Jurisdictions

South Arkansas Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana,

Mississippi, North Carolina,

South Carolina, and Virginia

California California none

Southwest Colorado Arizona and New Mexico and the

Cheyenne River Sioux, Rosebud

Sioux, and Oglala Sioux Tribes

and the Three Affiliated Tribes

Subtropical Florida Hawaii

Midwest Iowa Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota,

Nebraska, North Dakota, and

South Dakota

Northeast New York Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,

Maryland, Massachusetts,

Michigan, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode

Island, Vermont, and West

Virginia, plus Puerto Rico and

the Virgin Islands

Ohio Valley Ohio Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,

Missouri, Tennessee, and

Wisconsin

Texas and Mountain West Texas Montana, Nevada, Utah, and

Wyoming

Northwest Washington Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and the

Shoshone

- Bannock Tribe

2148

Table 3.2

- 1 also lists a few non

- state jurisdictions that are included in certain regions, including 2149

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and several tribal entities. These jurisdictions were assigned to a 2150

region according to which of EPA’s regional offices they belong. Not all jurisdictions are 2151

included in this analysis because data on farms and pesticide use are not available. This implies 2152

some undercounting of affected entities and an underestimate of the incremental costs, but the 2153

effect will be negligible since the jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia, have tiny 2154

agricultural sector s relative to those in the states. 2155

2156

EPA examined the worker protection requirements for each of the representative states to 2157

establish the baseline for corresponding changes in the federal standards. The baseline is 2158

applied to all states within the regio n. In fact, variation in worker protection standards could be 2159

as great within a region as over the nation as a whole. However, the converse is also true; that is, 2160

there is no reason to think that the variation in the national

- level estimates of cost are greater 2161

than the variation in regional

- level estimates. 216258 2163



### 3.3 Cost of Potential Requirements 2164

2165

The purpose of this section of the cost analysis is to evaluate the expected impacts of potential 2166

worker protection standards at the national level and at the empl oyer level. EPA also estimates 2167

the potential costs across various regions of the United States, as described in Section 3.2. This 2168

information is used to evaluate the individual regulatory options and develop a proposed suite of 2169

regulatory changes, as exp lained in Chapter 4. The cost of those proposed requirements, as a 2170

whole, is estimated in Chapter 5. 2171

2172

EPA identified a number of areas where worker protections could be improved to address the 2173

problems discussed in Chapter 1 and within these areas conside red different requirement options, 2174

as detailed in Chapter 2. In this section, EPA presents the estimated cost of all the potential 2175

requirements, which is then used to help inform the decision of which requirements to propose. 2176

Section 3.3.1 details the me thodology EPA follows to estimate or characterize the incremental 2177

cost of potential requirements. Section 3.3.2 presents some of the key data used throughout the 2178

analyses of individual requirements. Section 3.3.3 estimates the cost of potential requireme nts 2179

associated with worker and handler training category, including a detailed presentation of an 2180

example of the approach. Subsequent sections present the estimated costs of potential revisions 2181

to the WPS concerning hazard communication s (Section 3.3.4), notification requirements 2182

(Section 3.3.5), age restrictions (3.3.6), entry restrictions (3.3.7), PPE requirements (3.3.8), 2183

supply requirements for decontamination (3.3.9), and emergency response standards (3.3.10). 2184

2185



### 3.3.1 General Methodology 2186

2187

In general, p otential requirements may impose costs at both the level of the employer or 2188

establishment and at the level of the employee. That is, there are some activities and/or materials 2189

that must be conducted or provided by each establishment regardless of the numb er of 2190

employees; these costs are somewhat analogous to ‘fixed costs’ of production. Other activities 2191

and/or materials may be conducted by or provided for each employee and will vary by the 2192

number of workers or handlers employed at each establishment. EPA ’s approach is to estimate 2193

the average annual cost for each affected actor of each potential requirement and extrapolate 2194

those costs to the regional level, given the number of actors (establishments or employees). 2195

There are six basic steps. 2196

2197

Step 1. Calc ulate the state/regional level baseline cost of existing regulatory requirement: 2198

2199

2200

where cost r,i, a B

t is the expected annual cost of the current requirement r , in region i , for an actor, 2201

a, in time t ; H r,i, a ,j B

t is the time required for activity j in time t under the current requirement; w a 2202

is the wage rate for the employee/employer category conducting the activity; Prob

t ( j | i ) is the 2203

probability of activity j i n time t given the region; M r,i, a ,m P

t is the quantity of material m needed 2204

in time t under the requirement; c m is the cost of material; and Prob

t ( m | i ) is the probability of 220559 material m being required in time t given the region. An actor may be an establis hment, 2206

primarily a WPS farm and/or a CPHE, or an employee, e.g. , a pesticide handler or agricultural 2207

worker. For some requirements, EPA distinguishes subgroups within an actor category, e.g.

, 2208

farms according to the size of the operation. Activities condu cted by the establishment include 2209

posting signs and keeping records. Activities occurring for each employee include attending 2210

training and obtaining written material from the employer, that is, activities for which an 2211

establishment incurs costs for every employee who is assigned that activity. The probability 2212

weighting indicates the likelihood that any given actor will undertake the activity in some year. 2213

For example, if training is required biennially, any given employee would have about a 50 2214

percent ch ance of taking a training. 2215

2216

Step 2. Calculate the expected annual cost per actor of each potential regulatory requirement: 2217

2218

2219

where variables are defined as above, with P denoting the potential new requirement. For 2220

simplicity at this step, we do not have an index i , denoting a state or region. State requirements 2221

can exceed federal requirements, however and if current state requirements exceed the potential 2222

federal requir ements, they would remain in place. Thus, in Step 1, we restrict H r,i,, a ,j B ≤ H

r, a ,j P 2223

and M r,i,, a ,m B ≤ M

r, a ,m P ; otherwise, the incremental cost would erroneously imply a cost savings. 2224

2225

Step 3. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and potential new requirements by 2226

multiplying per

- actor costs by the number of affected actors in a region and summing across 2227

actors. 2228

2229

2230

2231

where RC r,i X denotes the cost of requirement r t o region i of the regional baseline, B, and the 2232

potential new requirement, P; and N

a, i is the number of affected actors in a region. Note that the 2233

number of affected actors, e.g. , the number of pesticide handlers in a given region, may not be 2234

known and has to be estimated. This is explained in the section on general data (Section 3.3.2). 2235

2236

We can also estimate the national level costs by summing across regions. 2237

2238

223960 Step 4. Estimate the present value of the cost stream 1 . To better compare the impacts across the 2240

various potential requirements and the flow of expected benefits, EPA calculates the present 2241

value (PV) of regional costs over a ten

- year time ho rizon. 2242

2243

2244

where ρ is the discount rate and all other variables are as previously defined. The time horizon is 2245

not particularly important as most of the per

- actor costs, especially baseline costs, will occur 2246

ann ually. However, a few potential requirements require some capital investments and ten years 2247

was chosen as a reasonable time frame over which an agricultural establishment might 2248

financially amortize such expenditures. Further, the number of actors is chan ging over time, 2249

with the number of farms and farm workers declining and the number of CPHEs increasing; rates 2250

of change were calculated using three successive Census of Agriculture (NASS, 1999, 2004, 2251

2008b) spanning a ten

- year period. This is explained mo re fully in Section 3.3.2. We utilize a 2252

discount rate of three percent, to represent the social discount rate, and seven percent, to 2253

represent the private discount rate as suggest by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB, 2254

2003). 2255

2256

Again, the present value of national level costs is estimated as the sum of the regional costs. 2257

2258

Step 5. Estimate the incremental cost of the potential requirement in each region by subtracting 2259

the regional baseline cost from the cost of the potential new requirement. 2260

2261

2262

Where PV ( RIC r,i ) is the present value of regional incremental costs of requirement r in region i

. 2263

The PV of national incremental cost, PV ( NIC

r ), is calculated the same way. 2264

2265

Step 6. Calculate the annualized in cremental cost of the potential requirement. The annualized 2266

figure represents the constant cost that, over the time horizon, would result in the same present 2267

value as a variable cost stream. 2268

2269

2270

where AIC

r is th e annualized incremental cost at the national level, T is the length of the time 2271

horizon, i.e. , ten years; and all other variables are as previously defined. Dividing the annualized 2272

incremental cost by the number of impacted entities provides a simple mea sure of the costs per 2273

establishment, which is helpful information to weigh the costs and benefits of a potential 2274

requirement. A more detailed examination of impacts on small entities is presented in Chapter 5, 2275

considering the costs of all proposed require ments. 2276

2277

1 Present value is a measure of all future costs, translated into the equivalent value if paid or received immediately.61 A few of the potential requirements require some deviation from this general methodology. This 2278

will be explained in the following sections as we present the results. The next section discusses 2279

the data that are commonly used throughout the analys is. Data that are specific to individual 2280

requirements are discussed in conjunction with the potential requirement. 2281

2282



### 3.3.2 General Data 2283

2284

For Steps 1 and 2, the data required for the analysis consist of the time and materials needed to 2285

meet current and pote ntial requirements and the probability or frequency with which they will be 2286

needed. These are examined more fully in the following sections that discuss each potential 2287

requirement. The other component of the per

- actor costs are the prices associated with time and 2288

material. The wage rates for the various actors are used frequently in the analysis and are 2289

discussed below. Extrapolating to the regional and national (Step 3) requires data on the number 2290

of actors in each category, which includes the establis hment meeting the requirement or the 2291

employees to which the requirement applies. Finally, as EPA projects costs forward into time 2292

(Step 4), we need to take into account changes in costs and the agricultural sector. Most of the 2293

time and materials needed t o comply with current and potential requirements reoccur on an 2294

annual basis. Changes in the agricultural sector may be important, however, as farms 2295

consolidate and mechanize and as farms increasingly rely on commercial pest control services. 2296

In this sect ion, we will discuss the data and assumptions that describe the establishments and 2297

employees, including both numbers and wages, and changes in each over time. 2298

2299

Establishments , Farms 2300

2301

According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), there are over 2.2 million ranches, 2302

farms, nurseries, and greenhouses in the United States. At EPA’s request, the U.S. Department 2303

of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) co nducted a special tabulation of 2304

data in the 2007 Census of Agriculture to identify the number of these operations that use 2305

pesticides and hire labor. Farms that both use pesticides and hire labor may be covered by the 2306

WPS requirements. However, t he WPS a pplies only to those pesticides used in the commercial 2307

or research production of agricultural plants on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses. 2308

Although many livestock operations utilize pesticides, especially insecticides, such use is not 2309

covered by the WPS. Thus, we exclude about 640,000 ranches that are engaged only in livestock 2310

production. There are about 512,000 l ivestock operations that also have crop production

, 2311

however, that are included in this analysis. Table 3.3

- 1 presents the number of f arms where 2312

crops are raised , including ranches that produce crops, nurseries and greenhouses, and their 2313

distribution across the regions EPA identified for this analysis. According to the tabulation, 2314

304,348 farms, nurseries, and greenhouses hire d labor an d used pesticides in 2007. However, 2315

pesticides are not necessarily used every year. Thus, EPA uses the number of farms, nurseries, 2316

and greenhouses hiring labor ( 394,658 ) as the likely universe of operations affected by WPS 2317

requirements; these operations will be referred to as “WPS farms.” This may be a slight 2318

overestimation due to the presence of organic growers. However, many organic producers also 2319

have conventionally grown fields and organic

- approved pesticides, while generally considered 2320

less toxic t o humans, must still be handled carefully and are subject to the WPS requirements. 2321

232262 There is likely to be substantial overestimation of the number of affected farms, however, 2323

because the WPS applies only when workers are engaged in hand labor activities or if handlers 2324

are working with pesticides used for crop production. Hand labor activities will mostly occur in 2325

the production of nuts, fruits, and vegetables and in nurseries and greenhouses. The 2007 Census 2326

of Agriculture identifies 73,550 WPS farms in these categories, based on the primary source of 2327

revenue. U.S. farms frequently engage in diverse types of production so many other farms might 2328

produce such crops, even if the primary activity is highly mechanized like the production of 2329

oilseeds and/or g rains. Moreover, pesticide handlers may be employed on any category of farm, 2330

so this analysis includes all farms with crop production. 2331

2332

Farms that do not hire labor but use pesticides may be covered by the WPS as well because the 2333

definition of handler includes any self

- employed person who mixes, loads, or applies pesticides. 2334

However, these farms will generally not be affected by the propo sed revisions because there is an 2335

exemption from WPS requirements for the owner/operator of the farm and his or her immediate 2336

family members. At the same time, coverage by the WPS provides family farms with some 2337

exemptions to pesticide label requirements, e.g. , entry into treated fields during a REI during an 2338

agricultural emergency. Thus, any changes to the exemptions afforded by the WPS could affect 2339

all farms applying pesticides. 2340

2341

Table 3.3

- 1. Crop Farms and WPS Farms 1

. 2342

Region Crop Farms 1 Regional

Share Farms Using

Pesticides Farms Hiring

Labor

United States 1, 564,178 788,582 394,658

South 233,063 14.9% 117,499 58,804

California 96,979 6.2% 48,892 24,469

Southwest 50,054 3.2% 25,235 12,629

Subtropical 39,104 2.5% 19,715 9,866

Midwest 339,427 21.7% 171,122 85,641

Northeast 161,110 10.3% 81,224 40,650

Ohio Valley 361,325 23.1% 182,162 91,166

Texas/Mountain

West 192,394 12.3% 96,996 48,543

Northwest 90,722 5.8% 45,738 22,890

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b) 2343

1 Farms include nurseries and greenhouses as well as livestock operations that also produce crops

. 2344

2345

The tabulation for farms using pesticides and farms hiring labor is at the national level only. 2346

EPA assumes that farms hiring labor and using pesticides are distributed th roughout the country 2347

in the same proportion as all crop farms. Thus, while the national figures are well

- defined, the 2348

regional numbers are less precise. 2349

2350

Table 3.3

- 2 presents a breakdown of WPS establishments according to farm size, which bears on 2351

the imp acts of many of the requirements. For example, smaller farms are less likely to employ a 2352

pesticide handler. Instead, the owner/operator is likely to be the applicator or he/she will use a 2353

commercial applicator. The split between large farms, those with annual gross revenue greater 2354

than $750,000, and the small farm categories, corresponds to the definition under the Small 235563 Business Administration guidelines (CFR, 2013). EPA further subdivides the small farm 2356

category into three groups: small

- small farms w ith annual gross revenue less than $10,000, 2357

medium

- small farms with annual gross revenue between $10,000 and $100,000, and large

- small 2358

farms with annual gross revenue between $100,000 and $750,000. Feedlot operations, some of 2359

which produce crops, are cons idered small if annual gross revenue is less than $2.5 million. 2360

Subdivisions of small feedlots are small

- small, with annual gross revenue less than $50,000; 2361

medium small, with annual gross revenue between $50,000 and $500,000, and large

- small, with 2362

annual gross revenue between $500,000 and $2.5 million. These distinctions correlate to the 2363

number and type of employees and permit better estimation of regulatory impacts. They also 2364

correlate to pesticide use. Around 9 0 percent of large and large

- small WPS farms used 2365

pesticides in 2007, while just over 50 percent of small

- small farms did. Seventy

- four percent of 2366

medium

- small farms used pesticides. 2367

2368

Table 3.3

- 2. Number of WPS Establishments, by size category, and CPHEs. 2369

Region WPS

Farms Small

Small 1 Medium

Small 2 Large

Small 3 Large 4

South 58,804 11,906 18,062 20,746 8,089

California 24,469 4,954 7,516 8,633 3,366

Southwest 12,629 2,557 3,879 4,456 1,737

Subtropical 9,866 1,998 3,031 3,481 1,357

Midwest 85,641 17,340 26,305 30,214 11,781

Northeast 40,650 8,231 12,486 14,341 5,592

Ohio Valley 91,166 18,459 28,003 32,164 12,541

Texas/Mountain West 48,543 9,829 14,910 17,126 6,678

Northwest 22,890 4,635 7,031 8,076 3,149

U.S. 394,658 79,909 121,223 139,237 54,289

Source: Special tabulation from 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). Establishments distributed 2370

across regions according to distribution of all crop farms. 2371

1 Farms with annual revenue less than $10,000 and feedlots with annual revenue less than $50,000

. 2372

2 Farms with annual revenue greater than $10,000 and less than $100,000 and feedlots with annual 2373

revenue between $50,000 and $500,000

. 2374

3 Farms with annual revenue between $100,000 and 750,000 and feedlot s with annual revenue between 2375

$500,000 and $2.5 million

. 2376

4 Farms with annual revenue greater than $750,000 and feedlots with annual revenue greater than $2.5 2377

million

. 2378

2379

Establishments , Commercial Pesticide Handlers 2380

2381

In order to identify the number of CPHEs, EPA searched the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B, 2010) 2382

database of companies and identified firms under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2383

code descriptions for crop spraying services, crop disease control services, crop protecting 2384

services, soil chemica l treatment services, and weed control services (before and after planting). 2385

Within these categories, there were 1,231 firms that report ed hiring at least one employee. 2386

2387

Numbers are not available for firms making aerial applications. Based on conversatio ns with the 2388

National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA, 2008), EPA estimates that there are 3,200 238964 commercial aerial applicators nationwide. Assuming an average of two pilots per firm, we 2390

estimate that there are 1,600 aerial application establishment s. Given the proportion from Dun & 2391

Bradstreet for firms hiring employees, EPA estimates that 1,562 aerial applicators will have at 2392

least one employee. 2393

2394

Adding the estimate of aerial applicators to the number of firms identified in Dun & Bradstreet 2395

for oth er pest control firms results in a total of 2,793 CPHEs with employees . These firms are 2396

distributed across the regions in the same proportion as total farms. See Table 3.3

- 3. This 2397

assumption seems reasonable considering that the CPHEs would largely be s ervicing the farm 2398

sector. 2399

2400

EPA also considered the number of commercial applicators. In 2007, the year corresponding to 2401

the NASS data, there were 89,529 commercial applicators certified in the Agricultural Plant 2402

Production category. Given data on employe es from Dun & Bradstreet and by the NAAA, we 2403

estimate those establishments to account for 19,873 commercial applicators leaving 69,656. At 2404

the extreme, all these commercial applicator s could be self

- employed. More likely, many are 2405

part of small operation s not identified by Dun & Bradstreet. EPA assumes that one

- fourth of 2406

these applicators are self

- employed and the remaining applicators are part of operations with an 2407

average of 2.5 commercial applicators, including the owner of the establishment. As show n in 2408

Table 3.3

- 3, this implies that there are 17,414 self

- employed commercial applicators and 20,897 2409

CPHEs with two or three applicators . These two categories are distributed across the regions 2410

based on the number of commercial applicators certified in ea ch state (CPARD, 2007). 2411

2412

Table 3.3

- 3. Estimated number of CPHEs, by region. 2413

Region CPHE

multiple employees CPHE

few employees CPHE

self

- employed

South 416 918 765

California 173 1,049 874

Southwest 89 662 552

Subtropical 70 120 110

Midwest 606 8,355 6,963

Northeast 288 3,386 2,822

Ohio Valley 645 2,404 2,003

Texas/Mountain West 344 889 741

Northwest 162 3,113 2,594

U.S. 2,793 20,897 17,414

Source: EPA estimates based on D&B (2010); NAAA (2008); CPARD (2007). 2414

2415

Establishments , Wage Rates 2416

2417

The value of the owner/operator’s time is important in the estimation of the cost of most 2418

requirements. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2007c), managerial wages for 2419

farm establishments are $19.75 per hour. The full value of time would also include the value of 2420

benefits received, such as insurance. BLS reports that wages and salaries comprise 70 percent of 2421

total compensation for management in the civilian labor force (BLS, 2010). We, therefore, use a 2422

loaded wage rate of $28.21 per hour as t he full value of time. For commercial pesticide handling 242365 establishments, the unloaded wage rate of $21.21 per hour for employers and handler trainers 2424

(since employers would likely train their own handlers) is reported in the 2007 OES data series 2425

for the N AICS

- specific value (115100

- “Support Activities for Crop Production”) for SOC code 2426

37

- 1012 (“First

- Line Supervisors/Managers of Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers”) (BLS, 2427

2007c). Using the same rate for benefits as for farm establishments, the loade d wage rate for this 2428

category is $30.30 per hour. 2429

2430

Employees , Farmworkers 2431

2432

Table 3.3

- 4 presents the number of employees on crop farms and livestock operations with crops 2433

and the share of workers in each region. As we are including all farms that hire labor in the 2434

category of farms covered by the WPS, we implicitly assume that all labor is covered , over 2.3 2435

million people

. The WPS only covers farmworkers engaged in hand labor activities, so this is 2436

likely an overestimate of affected labor. Over 1.2 million workers are employed on nut, fruit and 2437

vegetable farms and nurseries and greenhouses, however, so any overestimation is less than that 2438

in the number of affected farms. Table 3.3

- 4 also presents the number of employees on farms 2439

according to their size designation under the SBA. While about 77 percent of farms that hire 2440

labor use pesticides, 87 percent of labor is employed on farms that use pesticides. As with the 2441

crop farms, the number of workers at the national level is from a special tabulation by NASS 2442

from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). Regional numbers for labor on farms by 2443

size are estimated by distributing the total number of employees in the same proportion as all 2444

farm workers. 2445

2446

Table 3.3

- 4. Hired Labor on Crop Farms, by size. 2447

Region Farm Labor Regional

Share Farm Labor

Large Farms 1 Farm Labor

Small Farms 1

United States 2,322,610 1,084,121 1,238,489

South 274,068 11.8% 127,926 146,142

California 394,844 17.0% 184,301 210,543

Southwest 78,969 3.4% 36,860 42,109

Subtropical 111,485 4.8% 52,038 59,447

Midwest 299,617 12.9% 139,852 159,765

Northeast 278,713 12.0% 130,095 148,619

Ohio Valley 353,037 15.2% 164,786 188,250

Texas/Mountain

West 185,809 8.0% 86,730 99,079

Northwest 346,069 14.9% 161,534 184,535

Source: 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b) 2448

1 Large farms are those with annual revenue greater than $750,000 or feedlots with annual revenue 2449

greater than $2.5 million , small farms are those with annual revenue of $750,000 or less or feedlots 2450

with annual revenue of $2.5 million or less

. 2451

2452

Employees , Pesticide Handlers 2453

245466 The number of pesticide handlers on WPS farms un known. EPA assumes that, on average, large 2455

WPS farms employ tw o individuals who handle pesticides and large

- small WPS farms employ 2456

one individual who handles pesticides. For the two smallest categories of WPS farms, EPA 2457

assumes the owner/operator is the sole pesticide handler. The distribution of handlers, therefor e, 2458

is equivalent to farms, as in Table 3.3

- 1, not to workers as in Table 3.3

- 4. Pesticide handlers 2459

represent a subset of WPS workers, not a distinct group. It is unlikely that an on

- farm handler 2460

would be occupied full time with pesticide handling tasks a nd will, therefore, likely perform 2461

other production

- related tasks. 2462

2463

Table 3.3

- 5 presents the number of pesticide handlers employed on WPS farms, and the number 2464

of handlers employed at CPHEs, given the same assumptions underlying Table 3.3

- 4. All WPS 2465

farms are likely to use commercial applicators for some applications. 2466

2467

Table 3.3

- 5. WPS Agricultural Workers and Handlers and CPHE handlers. 2468

Region Handlers

WPS farms 1 Handlers

CPHEs 2

,

multiple

employees Handlers

CPHEs,

few employees Handlers

CPHEs,

self

- employed

South 36,924 2,961 2,296 765

California 15,365 1,232 2,623 874

Southwest 7,930 636 1,656 552

Subtropical 6,195 497 299 100

Midwest 53,776 4,312 20,889 6,963

Northeast 25,525 2,047 8,465 2,822

Ohio Valley 57,245 4,591 6,009 2,003

Texas/Mountain

West 30,481 2,444 2,223 741

Northwest 14,373 1,153 7,782 2,594

U.S. 247,815 19,873 5 2,242 17,414

Source: NASS (2008b); D&B (2010); NAAA (2008), EPA estimates. 2469

1 Number of WPS handlers calculated assuming that, on average, there are two handlers per large WPS 2470

establishment and one handler per large

- small WPS establishment, not including the employer. 2471

Handlers are a subset of workers, not an additional category. 2472

2 Number of handlers includes employer. Handlers distributed across regions using distribution of all 2473

farms. 2474

3 Number of handlers includes employer. Distribution across regions follows number of state 2475

commercial applicator certifications for Agricultural Plant Production. 2476

2477

Employees , Wages 2478

2479

Data from the May 2007 N ational Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment and Wage 2480

Estimates from the BLS OES data series are used to determine the total number of handlers 2481

employed by commercial pesticide handling establishments (BLS, 2007c). The number of 2482

handlers employed by commercial pesticide handling establishment s (17,080 in total) is 2483

estimated as the sum of employees with the SOC code 45

- 2091(Agricultural Equipment 2484

Operators) or 37

- 3012 ( Pesticide Handlers, Spra yers, and Applicators, Vegetation ) that work for 248567 a firm with NAICS code 115100 (Support activities for crop production). Regional numbers are 2486

estimated using the proportion of farms, shown in Table 3.3

- 1. 2487

2488

The average wage rate for U.S. field workers repo rted in the November 2007 NASS Farm Labor 2489

Report (NASS, 2007) is $9.40 per hour. The BLS (2010) reports that, for all civilian workers, 2490

wages represent slightly more than 69.5 percent of total compensation, while for workers in the 2491

Natural Resource, Const ruction, and Maintenance category, wages are around 67.5 percent of 2492

total compensation. An agricultural category is not available. For nonunion workers, which may 2493

better represent farm labor, wages are about 72 percent of total compensation. Given the 2494

a vailable information, we decided to use a consistent rate of 70 percent for all actors in this 2495

analysis, resulting in a loaded wage rate for workers of $13.43 per hour. Since the revisions to 2496

the WPS are not expected to influence wages or benefits, the ch oice of loading factor is not 2497

critical to estimating the incremental costs of the requirements. 2498

2499

Handlers represent a more skilled set of workers, but we lack data on wage differentials. Instead, 2500

EPA estimated the wage rate for handlers as the simple average of the agricultural worker and 2501

the owner/operator of enterprise, obtaining a loaded wage rate of $20.83. An unloaded wage rate 2502

of $14.07 per hour is reported for commercial pesticide handling establishment handlers (BLS, 2503

2008). The loaded wage ra te for handlers of commercial pesticide handling establishments, 2504

therefore, is $20.10 per hour. We note that the two wage rates are similar, which lends support 2505

for the estimated wage rate for on

- farm handlers. 2506

2507

Future time periods 2508

2509

To project costs into the future, EPA must take into consideration any changes over time. EPA 2510

calculates the present value (PV) of regional baseline and new regulatory costs as shown in Step 2511

4 above. Thus, the calculation is: 2512

2513

2514

where ρ is the discount rate and all other variables are as defined as above. Some indices are 2515

suppressed for clarity. 2516

2517

In general, the per

- actor costs are constant through time, particularly for the baseline. However, 2518

the number of actors is chan ging as farms consolidate, production becomes more mechanized, 2519

and as growers increasingly rely on commercial pest control services. Changes in the number of 2520

actors are estimated to follow an annual growth (or decline) function, where g a represents the 2521

annual percentage change in the number of actors. That is, 2522

2523

2524

As a result, we can rearrange the equation for PV into components for each actor. 2525

252668 2527

Tha t is, in most cases, we have the cost by actor at the regional level, multiplied by a value that 2528

combines the effect of the growth or decline in numbers with the effect of the discount rate, 2529

which can then be summed across actors. Thus, in lieu of estimat ing regional costs in every year 2530

of the time horizon, we can often calculate the present value as the initial cost multiplied by 2531

some factor that combines the growth rates of the actors with the discount rate. 2532

2533

Based on numbers reported in the Agricultural Censuses of 1997, 2002, and 2007 (NASS, 1999, 2534

2004, and 2008b), EPA estimates the decline in farm numbers to be 0.47% annually and the 2535

decline in farm workers to be 2.14% per year. Given a discount rate of three percent, the ten

2536

year sum of the combined effects is a multiplier of 8.61 for WPS farms and 8.03 for workers. 2537

The WPS farm factor is applied to farm handlers as well. These factors are in contrast to a ten

2538

year sum of the discount rate alone of 8.79. See Table 3.3

- 6. Annual data on the number of 2539

farms and quarterly data on farm labor (NASS, 2013) indicate that the number of farms is quite 2540

steady and that the annual decline in farms workers is less than one percent. The difference in 2541

estimated costs is negligible, however, and does not influenc e the relative cost and benefits of the 2542

options discussed in this Chapter and in Chapter 4. The difference in growth rates is considered 2543

in a sensitivity analysis for the total incremental cost of the proposed revisions in Chapter 5. 2544

2545

Table 3.3

- 6 Multipl iers for calculating NPV. 2546

Actor g a r = 3% r = 7%

WPS Farms

- 0.47% 8.61 7.38

Farm Handlers

- 0.47% 8.61 7.38

Farm Workers

- 2.14% 8.03 6.91

CPHEs 4.27% 10.57 8.93

CPHE handlers 0.17% 8.85 7.57

Commercial Applicators 3.06% 10.03 8.50

Discount alone 0% 8.79 7.52

Source: EPA calculations. 2547

2548

For CPHEs with multiple employees, the growth rate is calculated using the U.S. Census 2549

Bureau’s 2006 Statistics of U.S. Businesses (Census Bureau, 2006). Within these statistics, EPA 2550

utilizes the NAICS code of 115112 (Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating) as 2551

representatives of these establishments and calculates the rate based on the number of 2552

establishments from 1998 to 2006. The number of CPHEs is estimated to be growing at a rate of 2553

4.27 percent per y ear. Given a discount rate of three percent, the combined effect over 10 years 2554

is a multiplier of 10.57. Reliance on the past rate of growth, which has been high, may overstate 2555

the future growth of commercial pesticide services. If the future rate of gr owth is more 2556

moderate, the multiplier would be lower. 2557

2558

For handlers employed by CPHEs with multiple employees, EPA calculates the growth rate from 2559

employment estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment 2560

Statistic’s National I ndustry

- Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates from May 256169 2002 to May 2007 (BLS, 2007c) for NAICS code 115100 (Support Activities for Crop 2562

Production) and specifically for SOC codes 45

- 2091 (Agricultural Equipment Operators) and 37

- 2563

3012 (Pestici de Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation). Handler numbers are growing 2564

at an average rate of 0.17 percent per year, leading to a multiplier of 8.85 with a three percent 2565

discount rate. 2566

2567

The growth rate of commercial applicators was calculated (ba sed on CPARD 2007 data) to be 2568

3.06 percent per year, leading to a multiplier of 10.03 for a three percent discount rate. This 2569

growth rate applies to CPHEs with few employees and their handlers as well as to self

- employed 2570

commercial handlers. 2571

2572

This complet es the discussion of the general data used in the analysis. As mentioned above, the 2573

data that are specific to individual requirements are discussed in conjunction with the potential 2574

requirement. The discussion of the potential requirements begins in the next section with 2575

training, followed by notification, age, entry, personal protective equipment, emergency response 2576

and decontamination supplies. 2577

2578



### 3.3.3 Training 2579

2580

Training requirements impose costs on WPS farms in the form of providing training , potentiall y 2581

hiring trainers, and incurring the opportunity cost of labor during the time workers and handlers 2582

are receiving the training. Commercial pesticide applicator firms bear costs for handler training. 2583

2584

We assume that all farms hiring labor conduct training sessions even if over the course of the 2585

production season they find they do not need to make pesticide applications. Otherwise, any 2586

untrained employees, especially handlers, would have to be trained prior to an application, which 2587

could delay treatment. A lternatively, the pesticide application could be made and untrained 2588

employees would not be allowed to work in and around treated areas until they receive training, 2589

which might negatively affect farm activities. However, if employees can be brought into 2590

co mpliance with little or no delay of pesticide treatments or other farm activities, WPS farms 2591

may find it more cost

- effective to forego training until a pesticide application is needed. Thus, as 2592

a sensitivity analysis, EPA also estimates the incremental co st of potential training requirements 2593

if only those WPS farms using pesticides conduct trainings. Yet another scenario hypothesizes 2594

that WPS farms find it cost

- effective to forego training under the current regulatory environment, 2595

but will not under poten tial regulations. For example, currently, if the owner/operator is a 2596

certified applicator, he or she may lead worker training sessions, which would facilitate the rapid 2597

provision of training as needed. A potential requirement, however, would raise the qu alifications 2598

needed to lead a training, which might make it more difficult to organize an immediate training. 2599

Thus, we also conduct a sensitivity analysis to estimate the incremental cost of potential 2600

requirements if training occurs as needed in the basel ine but will occur regardless of pesticide 2601

use under the revisions. We also assume that all employees receive training, which likely leads 2602

to an overestimate of costs. Some employees, especially on farms with a primary focus of 2603

livestock production, will probably not engage in fieldwork that would expose them to pesticide 2604

residues and will, therefore, not require pesticide safety training. 2605

260670 In this section, we present the estimation of one potential training requirement in detail to 2607

demonstrate the methodology. For the other potential requirements, we provide summary 2608

information about the effect of the requirements and present the results. Details on the 2609

estimation are available in Appendix A. Potential requirements are numbered as in Chapter 2. 2610

2611

Requirement: Immediate Training of Workers 2612

2613

TRAIN

- 01. Immediate full training of workers. The potential requirement would require full 2614

training of workers prior to entry into an area where a pesticide application had been made or a 2615

REI had been in effect within the previous 30 days. 2616

2617

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Costs 2618

Under current requirements, workers must be trained every five years. Requiremen ts currently 2619

allow for an abbreviated training, with full training required before the sixth day of entry into an 2620

area described above. 2621

2622

Action is required by two actors, the WPS farm, which provides or arranges the training, and the 2623

workers, who take the training. We consider these actors separately, although the WPS farm 2624

incurs the training costs and implicitly pays the worker to take the training at the same wage he 2625

or she earns doing field work. 2626

2627

Regarding the provision of training, the cost is essenti ally the cost of providing a trainer. We do 2628

not include material costs as there are none specifically required under the requirements, 2629

although various aides such as DVDs are available. Thus, for each WPS farm, the cost is 2630

2631

2632

where j , in this case, is the type of trainer hired to conduct the training. There are four types of 2633

trainers are eligible to conduct worker safety training, each of which may be paid at a different 2634

wage rate. Table 3.3

- 7 presents this estimation. The four groups of trainers are: (1) trainers of 2635

handlers and certified applicators, paid $37.87 per hour and assumed to lead 14 percent of 2636

trainings; (2) individuals who have completed a train the trainer program, also p aid $37.87 per 2637

hour and account for ten percent of trainings; (3) certified applicators, paid $28.21 per hour lead 2638

75 percent of trainings; and (4) handlers, paid $20.83 per hour and assumed to lead one percent 2639

of trainings. Wage rates are from December, 2007, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2640

(BLS, 2007a). The wages in Table 3.3

- 7 are loaded, assuming wages account for 70 percent of 2641

total compensation as explained in Section 3.3.2. The wage for handler trainers is based on 2642

NAICS code for SOC 19

- 1013 (soil and plant scientist). Handler wages are as explained in 2643

Section 3.2; wages for the other categories are based on owner/operator wages as in Section 3.2. 2644

The probabilities that each category conducts a training are based on EPA’s discussion s with 2645

trainers, extension agents, and employers who indicate that certified applicators, who may be the 2646

owner/operator of the farm, conduct the majority of sessions and that handlers rarely conduct a 2647

training. Based on EPA observations of trainings and t he length of training videos, EPA 2648

assumes that a full training currently takes about 30 minutes. 2649

265071 Given the data on numbers of farms and farm workers (Tables 3.3

- 1 and 3.3

- 4), there are, on 2651

average

, 20 workers per large WPS farm (those with more than $750, 000 in annual sales) and 3.6 2652

workers per small WPS farm . With a five

- year training cycle, an average of four workers to less 2653

than one worker per large and small farm would need to be trained every year. This number 2654

could easily be accommodated with a sin gle session. However, given new hires, including 2655

workers who change employers, an average farm may need to train almost half its work force 2656

each year (see below) or about three workers each year. Moreover, the average worker per farm 2657

masks considerable v ariability across farms with different production systems. For example, 2658

large WPS farms that primarily produce grains and oilseeds employ less than five workers, on 2659

average, while small WPS farms producing fruits, nuts, and vegetables employ an average of 15 2660

workers. Given the overall averages, and the flexibility for training new hires provided by the 2661

five

- day period before a worker must be trained, EPA assumes for simplicity that, on average, a 2662

WPS farm conducts one full training each year. Individual farms will differ , perhaps 2663

substantially

. In fact, EPA assumes that s mall farms with fewer than ten workers are likely to 2664

hold 0.7 training sessions each year on average, small farms with more than ten workers hold an 2665

average of 2.2 training session per y ear, large farms with fewer than ten workers will hold 0.9 2666

sessions per year , and large farms with more than ten workers hold 4.5 session per year . On 2667

average, however, the frequency or probability that the training will be led by a particular type of 2668

tra iner is simply the proportion of trainings that type of trainer conducts. 2669

2670

Table 3.3

- 7. Per

- Establishment Baseline Costs for TRAIN

- 01, Immediate Training. 2671

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j annual

frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.140 $ 2.6 6

Training by Train

- the

Trainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.100 $ 1. 90

Training by certified

applicator $28.21/hr 30 min 0.750 $10. 63

Training by handler $20.83/hr 30 min 0.010 $ 0.10

cost r,i, a B $15.2 9

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2672

2673

For a sensitivity analysis, we assume that WPS farms forego training unless and until a pesticide 2674

application is needed. The probability of conducting a training is therefore weighted by the 2675

likelihood that a farm hiring labor makes a pesticide application, which is, on the average, 77.1 2676

percent. Thus, the expected per

- WPS farm cost in the baseline would be $1 1.7 9

. 2677

2678

The per

- worker cost for an establishment is estimated in a similar manner. Each worker to be 2679

trained spends 30 minutes in training at a wage rate of $13.43 per hour including benefits (U.S. 2680

Department of Labor, 2008). In the baseline, 48.9 percent of workers will to be trained each 2681

year. This per centage is derived as follows. 2682

2683

Specific data on retention and/or new hiring are not available, however a report from the 2684

National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) , 2001

- 2002 (DoL, 2005) indicates that 16 2685

percent of the agricultural workforce is comprise d of foreign

- born newcomers. While this 268672 underestimates the true turnover rate in agriculture, EPA uses it as the new hire rate and 2687

examines the impact of this bias in a later sensitivity analysis. 2688

2689

This leaves 84 percent of the total number of workers returning each year. Current standards 2690

require that workers receive the training every five years, thus 20 percent of the returning 2691

workforce will need to take the full training in any given year. According to the NAWS (DoL, 2692

2 005), however, less than 25 percent of workers had been with their current employer for more 2693

than five years. Most workers will receive safety training if they change employers because the 2694

voluntary training verification cards provided in some states are not well accepted by employers 2695

as sufficient proof of training. In addition, there will likely be other workers that receive training 2696

even though they are within the five

- year period because they don’t remember when they last 2697

too k the training or because it is convenient for the employer to train workers simultaneously. In 2698

the absence of specific data, EPA assumes 40 percent of the returning workforce will take the 2699

full training for one reason or another. Forty percent of the returning workforce implies a 2700

calculated 33.6 percent of the workforce in need of training, which, along with the new hires at 2701

16 percent, gives us 49.6 percent of the workforce potentially in need of training 2

. Note that 2702

some workers may receive multiple trainings if they switch em ployers during the year and about 2703

28 percent of the workforce indicated multiple employers over the previous 12 months in the 2704

2001

- 2002 NAWS (DoL, 2005). EPA does not account for any additional costs associated with 2705

the worker’s time in multiple training sessions, which would lead to an underestimation of the 2706

baseline costs of worker training and, potentially, an overestimation of the incremental costs of 2707

the proposals and alternatives. 2708

2709

Some small portion of the workforce may work less than six days and t hus could receive an 2710

abbreviated training, but not a full training. Based on Farm Labor Reports (NASS, 2007 and 2711

2008a), EPA estimates that 28 percent of the agricultural workforce, including both new and 2712

returning workers, are part

- time employees who work less than 150 days. EPA assumes that five 2713

percent of these part

- time employees, or about 1.4 percent of the workforce, do not receive 2714

training because they are employed for less than six days. Thus, 98.6 percent of the first time 2715

and returning workers i n need of training will take the full training, or 48.9 percent of the total 2716

workforce. 2717

2718

Note that the untrained portion of the workforce is relatively small, about 1.4 percent. However, 2719

this suggests that up to 3 5,000 farm workers each year do not receiv e pesticide safety training 2720

when they are hired or within five years of a previous training. 2721

2722

Table 3.3

- 8 presents the per

- worker cost of training under current requirements, including the 2723

per

- worker cost for establishments of abbreviated trainings. An ab breviated training is assumed 2724

to take about three minutes or 0.05 hours, on average. As noted above, EPA estimates almost 1.4 2725

percent of the workforce will receive the abbreviated training only. We further assume that 25 2726

percent of new hires receive an a bbreviated training in lieu of immediately attending a full 2727

training session, most of whom will then receive the full training within six days. Together, this 2728

suggests that approximately 5.3 percent of workers will receive an abbreviated training each 2729

yea r. Finally, abbreviated trainings are assumed to be delivered individually, requiring three 2730

2 This will be the percentage of the work force trained, on average, if immediate training is required.73 minutes of time by the trainer, who would likely be the establishment operator, whose time is 2731

valued at $28.21 per hour as explained in Section 3.3.2. 2732

2733

Table 3.3

- 8 . Per

- Worker Baseline Costs for TRAIN

- 01. 2734

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j annual

frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Full Training Session $13.43/hr 30 min 0.489 $ 3.28

Abbreviated Training

Session $13.43/hr 3 min 0.053 $ 0.04

Trainer for Abbreviated

Session $28.21/hr 3 min 0.053 $ 0.08

cost r, a B $ 3.40

Source: EPA estimation. See text for assumptions and data sources. 2735

2736

For the sensitivity analysis, we note that 87.4 percent of workers are employed on farms that 2737

make a pesticide application. Weighting the probability of attending some kind of training 2738

session by this amount yields an expected cost per worker of $ 2.97

. 2739

2740

Step 2. Calculate Per

- Actor Costs of Potential R equirement 2741

The costs of the potential revision are estimated in the same manner. 2742

2743

EPA assumes that trainings will be needed 1.5 times per year, on average, over all farms, since 2744

workers may be hired at different times during the year. This represents an i ncrease over the 2745

baseline, shown above, due to the loss of flexibility currently provided by the five

- day grace 2746

period. The probability of a training, by type of trainer, is, therefore, 50 percent higher than in 2747

the baseline. Table 3.3

- 9 presents this es timation for establishments. 2748

2749

Table 3.3

- 9. Per

- Establishment Costs for TRAIN

- 01, Immediate Training. 2750

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j annual

frequency

Prob( j ) cost

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.210 $ 3.98

Training by Train

- the

Trainer $37.87/hr 30 min 0.150 $ 2.84

Training by certified

applicator $28.21/hr 30 min 1.125 $15.87

Training by handler $20.83/hr 30 min 0.015 $ 0.16

cost r, a P $22.8 5

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2751

2752

For the sensitivity analysis, the probabilities would again be weighted by 77.1 percent, the 2753

likelihood that a farm hiring labor makes a pesticide application. Expected compliance cost 2754

would be $1 7.62

. 2755

275674 The per

- worker cost for an establishment is similar. Each worker to be trained spends 30 2757

minutes in training at a wage rate of $13.43 per hour including benefits (BLS, 2008). EPA 2758

calculates that, in future years, 49.6 percent of workers will be trained every year as e xplained 2759

above. This percentage includes workers employed for less than six days since the grace period 2760

would be eliminated. 2761

2762

In the first year under the rule, EPA calculates that an additional 1.2 percent of the total 2763

workforce will need training. This represents the returning workers who previously worked less 2764

than six days and, under the grace period, did not receive a full training. The percentage is 2765

calculated as 84 percent, the proportion of returning workers, multiplied by the 1.4 percent of the 2766

w orkforce we calculated above as receiving only abbreviated training. 2767

2768

Table 3.3

- 10 presents the per

- worker unit cost of eliminating the training grace period. 2769

2770

Table 3.3

- 10. Per

- Worker Costs for TRAIN

- 01. 2771

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j annual

frequency

Prob( j ) cost

cost r, a P

t

Worker Training (Year 1) $13.43/hr 30 min 0.508 $ 3.41

Worker Training (future) $13.43/hr 30 min 0.496 $ 3.33

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. 2772

2773

Under the sensitivity analyses, expected costs are estimated to be $ 2.98 in the first year and 2774

$ 2.91 thereafter. Cost is somewhat lower because the probability of attending a training is 2775

adjusted to account for the fact that 87.4 percent of workers are employed on farms that m ake a 2776

pesticide application. 2777

2778

Step 3. Estimate Regional Level Baseline and Compliance Costs 2779

Given the estimated costs per

- establishment and per

- worker, we can estimate the regional level 2780

baseline and compliance costs by multiplying by the number of establishments or workers in 2781

each region that are affected by the requirements and adding the two components together. 2782

2783

2784

Table 3.3

- 11 presents the baseline costs, where the number of farms is taken from Table 3.3

- 2 2785

and the number of workers from Table 3.3

- 4. Under current requirements, the national cost is 2786

estimated to be $ 13. 9 million per year. Establishment

- level costs total about $ 6.0 million per 2787

year and costs for worker time is approximately $ 7.9 million per y ear. Costs are for the first 2788

year; in future years, the baseline costs per actor are not expected to change but the number of 2789

actors is anticipated to decline. Under the alternate assumptions of the sensitivity analysis, 2790

baseline cost for the first year is $ 11.5 million. 2791

279275 Table 3.3

- 11. Regional Baseline Costs, TRAIN

- 01 Immediate Training, Year 1. 2793

WPS Farms WPS Workers Regional Cost,

Baseline

RC B

i ($1,000) cost r,i,, a B $15.23 $ 3.40

Region Number of

WPS Farms

N i frm Number of WPS

Workers

N i wrkr

South 58,804 274,068 $ 1, 8 30

California 24,469 394,844 $ 1,71 5

Southwest 12,629 78,969 $ 46 1

Subtropical 9,866 111,485 $ 529

Midwest 85,641 299,617 $ 2,32 7

Northeast 40,650 278,713 $ 1,56 8

Ohio Valley 91,166 353,037 $ 2,5 93

Texas/Mountain West 48,543 185,809 $ 1,37 3

Northwest 22,890 346,069 $ 1,52 5

US 394,658 2,322,610 $13, 922

Source: EPA estimates and special tabulation from NASS (2008); see Table 3.3

- 1. Baseline costs per 2794

WPS farm and per worker are multiplied by the number in each region and the products are 2795

summed. Numbers in columns may not sum due to rounding. 2796

2797

Table 3.3

- 12 presents the estimated regional and national costs for the potential requirements. In 2798

the first year, costs are estimated to be $1 6.9 million, an increase over baseline of $ 3.0 million. 2799

Establishment level costs are estimated to be $ 9.0 million while worker

- level cost rise only 2800

slightly over the baseline. In future years, EPA estimates the worker

- level will decline slightly 2801

because it eliminates the need for an abbreviated training in addition to the full training. The 2802

expected per

- worker cost is estimated to be $3.33 per year (Table 3.3

- 10) which would, if 2803

applied to the first year, result in worker

- level cost of $ 7.7 million. 2804

2805

Overall, however, the requirement would reduce the flexibility of agricultural establishments to 2806

hire workers as needed and to provide a full training when there is a critical mass of employees. 2807

This effect is captured by the increased number of trainings , which drives the increase in per

2808

establishment costs shown in Table 3.3

- 9. 2809

281076 Table 3.3

- 12. Regional Compliance Costs, TRAIN

- 01 Immediate Training, Year 1. 2811

WPS Farms WPS Workers

Regional Cost,

Potential

RC P

est ($1,000) cost r, a P $22.84 $ 3.41

Region Number of WPS

Farms

N i est Number of WPS

Workers

N i wrkr

South 58,804 274,068 $ 2,27 8

California 24,469 394,844 $ 1,905

Southwest 12,629 78,969 $ 558

Subtropical 9,866 111,485 $ 605

Midwest 85,641 299,617 $ 2,978

Northeast 40,650 278,713 $ 1,879

Ohio Valley 91,166 353,037 $ 3,286

Texas/Mountain West 48,543 185,809 $ 1,742

Northwest 22,890 346,069 $ 1,70 3

US 394,658 2,322,610 $16,93 3

Source: EPA estimates and special tabulation from NASS (2008b); see Table 3

- 3.2. Baseline costs per 2812

establishment and per worker are multiplied by the number in each region and the products are 2813

summed. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2814

2815

As a sensitivity analysis, EPA assumes training costs are incurred only by those WPS farms 2816

making a pesticide appli cation in a given year. Under this scenario, the first

- year cost is 2817

estimated to be $1 3.9 million. 2818

2819

Step 4. Calculate the PV of Costs. 2820

EPA calculates the PV of costs over the ten

- year time horizon as explained in Section 3.3.1. The 2821

costs per establishmen t for the baseline and the potential requirement are constant over time. 2822

Thus, we can multiply the first year cost by 8.61, as explained in Section 3.3.2, to obtain the PV 2823

of establishment cost. The cost per worker in the baseline is also constant and th e multiplication 2824

factor is 8.03. However, the cost per worker declines from $3.41 in the first year to $3.33 in 2825

future years under the potential requirement once all part time workers obtain full training. The 2826

PV of worker cost for the potential requirem ent is the first year cost plus the lower cost for future 2827

years, times the number of workers, multiplied by 7.03, which calculates the discounted cost for 2828

the last nine years of the time horizon. 2829

2830

That is, 2831

2832

becomes, for the worker cost at the national level, 2833

2834

PV ( NC r,wrkr P ) = $ 7.917 million + $3.33·( 2,322,610 )·(8.03

- 1) 2835

2836

Regional cost is calculated the same way and the establishment and worker elements are added 2837

together. Estimates are presente d in Table 3.3

- 12. 283877 2839

Step 5. Estimate the Regional Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement. 2840

The incremental costs of the potential requirement are estimated at the regional level by taking 2841

the difference in the PV of the compliance and the regional b aseline costs. 2842

2843

2844

Estimates are shown in Table 3.3

- 13, showing both establishment and worker components. This 2845

potential requirement would reduce the per

- worker cost, primarily because it eliminates 2846

abbreviate d trainings. The per

- establishment cost, however, increases because more full 2847

trainings will need to be conducted due to the elimination of the grace period between 2848

employment and training. 2849

2850

Table 3.3

- 13 Present Value of Costs, TRAIN

- 01 Immediate Trainin g. 2851

Region PV(RC P

frm ) PV(RC P

wrkr ) PV(RC B

frm ) PV(RC B

wrkr ) PV(RIC)

($1,000) ($1,000)

South 11,5 71 7,349 7,7 46 7,471 3,7 04

California 4,81 5 10,588 3,2 23 10,763 1,4 17

Plains 2,485 2,118 1,6 64 2,153 7 87

Subtropical 1,941 2,990 1, 300 3,039 59 2

Midwest 16,8 51 8,034 11,2 81 8,167 5,4 38

Northeast 7,99 9 7,474 5,3 55 7,597 2,5 21

Ohio Valley 17,93 8 9,467 1 2

, 00 9 9,623 5, 774

Texas/Mountain

West 9,55 2 4,983 6,3 94 5,065 3, 075

Northwest 4,50 4 9,280 3,0 15 9,433 1,3 36

US 77,6 56 62,283 51, 986 63,309 24, 643

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2852

2853

Table 3.3

- 14 presents the total regional costs and the annualized costs, using a three percent 2854

discount rate. Regional costs are estimated to range from $ 6 7 ,000 per year in the Subtropical 2855

region to $ 6 57 ,000 in the states of the Ohio Valley. 2856

285778 Table 3.3

- 14. Present Value of Costs, TRAIN

- 01 Immediate Training. 2858

Region PV(RC P ) PV(RC B ) PV(RIC) Annualized

RIC

$1000 $1000

South 18,9 20 15, 216 3,7 04 42 2

California 15,40 3 13,9 86 1,4 17 16 1

Plains 4,60 3 3,8 16 7 87 90

Subtropical 4,931 4,33 9 59 2 6 7

Midwest 24,88 6 19,4 48 5,4 38 6 19

Northeast 15,47 2 12,9 52 2,5 21 28 7

Ohio Valley 27,40 5 21, 632 5, 774 6 57

Texas/ Mountain West 14,53 4 11,4 59 3, 075 35 0

Northwest 13,784 12,4 48 1,3 36 15 2

US 139,9 39 115, 296 24, 643 2,8 05

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 2859

2860

Step 6. Estimate National Level Incremental Cost of the Potential Requirement. 2861

The national incremental cost of the potential requirement is simply the sum of the regional level 2862

incremental cost or the difference in the sum of regional level baseline and potential costs. 2863

Estimates are shown in the last row of Table 3.3

- 14. The incremental cost of the potential 2864

requirement is estimated to be $ 24. 6 million over 10 years, given a 3% discount rate. This 2865

corresponds to $ 2.8 million per year and an average of $7. 10 per year per WPS farm. The per

2866

farm cost assumes that the employer ultimately bears the full cost because he or she pays the 2867

worker for the time spent in training. However, many tem porary workers employed to harvest 2868

fruit and vegetables are paid by the quantity of produce they pick. For those workers, the time 2869

spent in training may represent forgone wages. 2870

2871

Sensitivity Analysis, Timing of Training 2872

As discussed throughout this exampl e, EPA examined the effect of the assumption that all farms 2873

hiring labor would, on average, conduct trainings, even if no pesticide application is ultimately 2874

made on the farm. Under the alternative assumption that training only occurs if a pesticide 2875

appli cation is made, the incremental cost of requiring immediate training is $ 2.2 million 2876

annually, or $5. 5 0 per year per WPS farm, on average. 2877

2878

At the other extreme, the alternative assumption may only apply to the baseline, but, because of 2879

the loss of flexibi lity permitted by the grace period, it would not apply under the potential 2880

requirement. That is, the number of farms conducting trainings and the number of workers 2881

attending training would increase from the baseline. Under this scenario, the incremental cost of 2882

this potential requirement is estimated to be $ 5.1 million per year or $1 2. 80 per WPS farm. 2883

2884

Sensitivity Analysis, New Hire Rate 2885

As a second sensitivity analysis, EPA examined the impact of the approximated hiring rate on 2886

estimates of baseline and potential costs by estimating costs using a 20 percent new hire rate in 2887

lieu of the 16 percent rate used above. A higher rate means more new workers who must receive 2888

abbreviated and/or full training, but fewer returning workers who must be retrained. The former 2889

is the larger effect, implying that by using the lower rate, EPA is underestimating the cost of 289079 training in the baseline. With a new hire rate of 20 percent, the estimated incremental cost of 2891

immediate training is $ 2.789 million annually , about a percentage lower than the estimate us ing 2892

of a 16 percent new hire rate. Therefore, EPA concludes that the estimate is not sensitive to t he 2893

assumption of the new hire rate and using the 16 percent new hire rate provides us with a 2894

reasonable estimate of the cost, with some upward bias. 2895

2896

Other Training Requirements 2897

2898

Table 3.3

- 15 presents the net present value of the cost of the potential trai ning requirements EPA 2899

is considering. Details of these estimations can be found in Appendix A. In this section, we 2900

briefly discuss the results and highlight any data considerations. 2901

2902

The most costly changes to the current standards would be to require an nual training of workers 2903

compared to the current requirement of training every five years (TRAIN

- 03, $ 8.8 million 2904

annually) and to expand the content of worker training including an explanation of information 2905

found in crop sheets (TRAIN

- 07, $ 5. 3 million annually). Costs are estimated using a 3% 2906

discount rate. The high cost reflects the significant increase in the amount of trainer and 2907

employee time devoted to training and the number of affected farms and workers. Relatively 2908

low

- cost potential requireme nts include increasing the trainer qualifications for worker trainings 2909

(TRAIN

- 08 and 09), which are estimated to cost around $ 1.1 million per year over 10 years. The 2910

cost is primarily due to higher wages paid to more qualified trainers. Implementation of these 2911

requirements would be delayed two years to allow sufficient trainers to acquire the necessary 2912

qualifications and this delay is factored into the analysis. EPA also considered eliminating the 2913

training verification programs (TRAIN

- 17), which would sa ve the over $ 560 ,000 annually. 2914

Alternatively, requiring verification be given to workers, but as a copy of the training registry, 2915

could save almost $1 8 0,000 but accomplish essentially the same objective. 2916

2917

Table 3.3

- 15. Present Value of National Costs, Po tential Training Requirements 1

. 2918

Potential Requirement PV(NC P ) PV(NC B ) PV(NIC) Annualized

NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Immediate Training 139,9 39 115, 296 24, 643 2,8 05

02 Immediate Training with

Exceptions 135, 225 115, 296 19,929 2,2 68

03 Annual Worker Training 192,1 27 115, 296 7 6,831 8,7 45

04 Biennial Worker Training 14 3,345 115, 296 2 8,049 3,1 92

05 Annual Worker Training,

Small Farm Exception 18 1,320 115, 296 6 6,024 7, 515

06 Expand Worker Training

Content 2 1 60,164 12 2,092 3 8,072 4,3 33

07 Expand Worker Training

Content (crop sheet variant) 2 168, 813 12 2,092 46, 721 5,3 18

08 Increase Worker Trainer

Standards 12 5,060 115, 296 9,7 64 1,1 11

09 Increase Worker Trainer

Standards, Train

- the

- Trainer

variant 12 5,060 115, 296 9,7 64 1,1 1180 Potential Requirement PV(NC P ) PV(NC B ) PV(NIC) Annualized

NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

10 Keep Worker Training

Records

- 2yr 14,2 69 0 14,2 69 1,6 24

11 Keep Worker Training

Records

- 5yr 17, 144 0 17, 144 1,9 51

12 Annual Handler Training 3 56,579 26,045 30,534 3,475

13 Biennial Handler Training 3 39,385 24,979 14,406 1,640

14 Expand Handler Training

Content 3 30,284 24,524 5,761 656

15 Expand Handler Training

Content (crop sheet variant) 3 31,513 24,524 6,989 795

16 Keep Handler Training

Records

- 2yr 4 1,550 123 1,427 162

17 Keep Handler Training

Records

- 5yr 4 2,658 123 2,536 289

18 Eliminate Training

Verification Cards 0 4,985

- 4,985

- 567

19 Require Training Verification

Cards 10,618 4,985 5,633 641

20 Require Employees Receive

Verification of Training 3,395 4,985

- 1, 590

- 1 81

Source: EPA estimates. 2919

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 2920

2 California requires additional worker training content, as shown in the baseline cost of TRAIN

- 06 and 2921

07; for the purpose of other baselines, costs are constrained to be less than or equal to the cost of the 2922

potential requirement. 2923

3 California requires additional co ntent and annual training for handlers, but for the purpose of the 2924

regional baseline for other handler requirements, costs are constrained to be equal to the potential 2925

regulatory costs. 2926

2927

TRAIN

- 02. Immediate full training of workers with exception. This p otential requirement is a 2928

variant on the one discussed previously (TRAIN

- 01); it would provide an exception to the 2929

requirement of immediate training of workers. This exception would allow agricultural 2930

employers to delay the full pesticide safety training for up to 2 days if workers are provided with 2931

an EPA

- approved right

- to

- know information sheet explaining pesticide hazard information prior 2932

to entering an area that had been treated with a pesticide in the last 30 days. In addition to 2933

providing workers wi th this right

- to

- know sheet, its content must be explained to the worker in a 2934

manner they understand. The exception would maintain some of the existing flexibility for 2935

employers. EPA estimates the incremental cost of this option, compared to current req uirements, 2936

to be about $ 2.3 million per year or about $ 5.80 per farm per year, on average. 2937

2938

TRAIN

- 03, 04, and 05. Frequency of worker training. Under current requirements, all workers 2939

must be trained at least once every five years if they will be entering a recently treated area. 2940

EPA is proposing to increase the frequency of worker training to every year (TRAIN

- 03). EPA 2941

also considered requiri ng training every other year (TRAIN

- 04) and providing WPS farms with 294281 fewer than ten employees with an exception from annual training requirement under certain 2943

circumstances. 2944

2945

Training costs are incurred at the farm level, where the employer provide s the tr aining, and at the 2946

worker or handler level where employees are not engaged in work activities during trainings. 2947

Costs per training are not expected to increase substantially at the farm level under the potential 2948

requirements, although most farms will need to provide more training sessions each year to 2949

accommodate the proposed requirement which increases the frequency of trainings. The primary 2950

reason regulatory cost increases is due to the increased number of employees receiving training 2951

each year. Annual training of agricultural workers (TRAIN

- 03) would result in incremental 2952

costs to the agricultural sector of about $ 8. 7 million per year over the baseline, or about $2 2.20 2953

per establishment. Biennial worker training (TRAIN

- 04) would cost about $ 3.2 millio n per year 2954

over the baseline, or about $8.10 per establishment. 2955

2956

If training does not occur as a matter of course, but only occurs if a pesticide application is made, 2957

fewer WPS farms and workers are impacted each year. Under this assumption, annual traini ng is 2958

estimated to cost about $ 7.4 million annually ($ 18.70 per WPS farm) and biennial training would 2959

cost about $ 1.8 million ($ 4.50 per WPS farm). 2960

2961

Given the large proportion of small businesses in the U.S. farm sector, EPA convened a Small 2962

Business Advisory Review (SBAR) panel to advise the Agency on the development of the rule. 2963

The panel suggested providing an exception from annual training for WPS farms with fewer than 2964

ten workers that had no new employees and were using the same pesticide as in previous years 2965

(TRAIN

- 05) (EPA, 2008). The SBA defines small farms on the basis of revenue, i.e. , annual 2966

sales less than $750,000, but based on data from t he Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), EPA 2967

estimates almost 9 5 percent of small WPS farms have fewer than ten workers. In fact, almost 60 2968

percent of large WPS farms employ fewer than ten workers. It is not clear how many of these 2969

farms would meet the la tter two criteria. EPA estimates that, if five percent of small farms could 2970

take advantage of the exception ( i.e. , had no new employees and used the same pesticide as in 2971

previous years), this option would cost about $ 7

. 5 million per year across all farms, about $ 1.2 2972

million less than annual training without exceptions. The incremental cost is estimated to be 2973

$1 2.40 per year, on average, for small farms. In contrast, the incremental cost of annual training 2974

is estimated to be $1 5. 40 per year, on average, f or small farms. If ten percent of small farms met 2975

the criteria for the exception, the incremental cost would fall to $1 0.20 per year, on average. 2976

Note that the estimated cost of this option does not include the cost of documenting compliance 2977

with the cri teria for exception. 2978

2979

TRAIN

- 06 and 07. Content of worker training. Current requirements specify the content of 2980

trainings which, as noted above, takes about 30 minutes to cover. The expanded content that 2981

would be required under the proposed option would include, among other things, an explanation 2982

of the h azard information found in the SDS. Together, the expanded content is expected to add 2983

another 15 minutes to the trainings at a cost of $ 4. 3 million per year (TRAIN

- 06). This averages 2984

out to be about $1 1 .00 per WPS farm. The alternative would include an explanation of the 2985

hazard information found in more detailed crop sheets, which would entail a slightly longer 2986

session estimated to be an extra 18 minutes. The alternative is expected to cost about $ 5. 3 298782 million per year or an average of $1 3. 50 per WPS farm. Both estimates assume a two

- year delay 2988

in implementation to allow for the development of the new training content. 2989

2990

The baselines for TRAIN

- 06 and 07 are different from those changing the frequency of 2991

requirement because California already requires expanded content similar to TRAIN

- 06. 2992

2993

EPA also estimated the incremental cost if only WPS farms making a pesticide application in a 2994

given year conduct training. An additional 15 minutes of training (TRAIN

- 06) would cost $ 3 .6 2995

million annually, or $9 .0 0 per WPS farm, while an additional 18 minutes of training (TRAIN

- 07) 2996

would cost $ 4. 3 million annually, or $ 11 .10 per WPS farm. 2997

2998

TRAIN

- 08 and 09. Increase worker trainer qualifications. These possible requirem ents would 2999

set standards for trainers of agricultural workers. TRAIN

- 08 (proposed) would require trainers 3000

to be qualified trainers of certified applicators or individuals who have completed an approved 3001

Train

- the

- Trainers program; TRAIN

- 09 would only allow individuals who have completed an 3002

approved Train

- the

- Trainers program. The impact of these potential requirements would be an 3003

increase in the overall cost for trainers. There may be an increase in costs to WPS farms of about 3004

$ 1.1 million per year or $2. 80 per WPS farm for both options. In the short term, both options 3005

could result in a shortage of trainers, with TRAIN

- 09 the more problematic. Employers could 3006

face delays in scheduling training sessions, a cost we cannot quantify. Implementation of the 3007

r evision would be delayed two years to allow for more trainers to be trained. 3008

3009

The incremental cost of these potential requirements is estimated to be $ 85 7 ,000 per year or 3010

$2. 20 per WPS farm, if only those farms making a pesticide application conduct worker training. 3011

However, it could be that all farms currently conduct worker training only as needed, but under 3012

the new requirements will conduct trainings as a matter of course because qualified trainers may 3013

not be available on demand. Under this high

- cost s cenario, the incremental cost is estimated to 3014

be $ 2.8 million annually or $ 7.2 0 per WPS farm. 3015

3016

TRAIN

- 10 and 11. Record keeping requirements, Worker training. Currently, WPS farms are 3017

not required to maintain records of the workers who have received training. These potential 3018

revisions would impose such requirements. Costs consist of the opportunity cost of labor for 3019

employees to acknowledge training and for employers to distribute, collect, and store the 3020

acknowledgements. There are also material costs to store the acknowledgements, depending on 3021

the length of storage. TRAIN

- 10 would require retention for two years while TRAIN

- 11 would 3022

require retention for f ive years. In total, the cost to document and store records on agricultural 3023

worker training is estimated to cost about $1. 6 to $ 2.0 million annually or $4. 10 to $ 4.90 per 3024

year per WPS farm. 3025

3026

If training only occurs if there is at least one pesticide appli cation, the estimated costs of the 3027

requirements are $ 1.3 million per year ($3. 20 per WPS farm) to keep records for two years and 3028

$1. 6 million per year ($4. 00 per WPS farm) to keep records for five years. 3029

3030

TRAIN

- 12 and 13. Frequency of handler training. C urrent requirements stipulate that handler 3031

training is valid for five years. EPA consider ed increasing the frequency of training to every 3032

year under TRAIN

- 12 or every other year under requirement TRAIN

- 13 for handlers. Training 303383 costs are incurred at the establishment level, to provide the training, and at the handler level, as 3034

employees are not engaged in work activities during trainings. As with worker training, some 3035

establishments may need to provide additional trainings each year to accommodate the in crease 3036

in the frequency of trainings , but t he primary reason that the regulatory cost increases is that 3037

more handler s would receive training each year. 3038

3039

EPA estimates that there are over 247 ,000 handlers employed by WPS farms, based on the 3040

assumption that there are, on average, two handlers for each large farm (annual revenues greater 3041

than $750,000) and one handler for each of the largest small farms (annual revenues between 3042

$100,000 and $750,000). There are also about 17,000 handlers employed by CPHEs (BL S, 3043

2007c). For lack of better data, EPA uses the same 16% new hire rate for both categories to 3044

determine the number of returning handlers that will need periodic training. We exclude self

3045

employed commercial handlers and other handlers who are certified because the training or 3046

examinations required by states would meet the WPS requirements. In fact, most of the 17,000 3047

CPHE handlers and many of the WPS handlers included in this cost estimate are also likely to be 3048

certified or in the process of obtaining c ertification and would probably meet WPS training 3049

requirements. 3050

3051

Under TRAIN

- 12, the increase in annual handler training over current requirements runs about 3052

$ 3.5 million per year and would cost the larger WPS farms an additional $17. 00 per year and 3053

CPHEs an additional $66. 70 , on average. Again, because most CPHE handlers would have or 3054

seek commercial certification, the true incremental cost is likely to be near zero. Biennial 3055

training under TRAIN

- 13 would cost $1. 6 million annually over the baseline. Av erage per entity 3056

costs for the larger WPS farms would be about $8. 10 per year more for handler training. CPHEs 3057

would incur additional costs of about $27. 40 per year, on average. The per

- entity costs are 3058

higher for the CPHEs because they employ more handl ers. 3059

3060

California already requires pesticide handlers to take annual training and the regional baseline is 3061

adjusted accordingly. As explained in the methodology, Chapter 3.1, states may exceed the 3062

federal standards. In the case of the potential requiremen t requiring biennial training, the cost of 3063

California baseline is constrained to be that under biennial training to account for the fact that 3064

federal requirements would not lower costs to California establishments. 3065

3066

It could be that pesticide handlers woul d only be trained if a pesticide application were needed. 3067

Under this scenario, requiring annual handler training would result in an incremental cost of $3 .1 3068

million annually or $1 5.30 per larger WPS farm. Since CPHEs are always making pesticide 3069

applicati ons, there is no change in the assumptions underlying the estimate of their cost. 3070

Requiring biennial handler training is estimated to cost an additional $1. 4 million per year ($ 6.90 3071

per larger WPS farm) over baseline, under the alternative assumption. EP A notes that the 3072

assumptions regarding the number of impacted farms and handlers has little effect on the 3073

estimated incremental cost because data show that 90 percent of handlers are employed on farms 3074

making pesticide applications in any given year. 3075

3076

TRAIN

- 14 and 15. Content of handler training. Current requirements specify the content of 3077

handler trainings and EPA estimates that trainings take about 45 minutes based on the length of 3078

commercially available video materials. The expanded content under the p otential requirements 307984 could add another 15 to 18 minutes to the trainings, the difference depending on whether the 3080

training cover s hazard communication via the SDS (see HAZCOM

- 02) or the more detailed crop 3081

sheets (see HAZCOM

- 04). This would cost an additi onal $ 656 ,000 for TRAIN

- 14 (additional 3082

15 minutes) and $ 795 ,000 for TRAIN

- 15 (additional 18 minutes) for pesticide handler training 3083

each year. Average handler training costs under TRAIN

- 14 and 15 are estimated to increase by 3084

$3. 20 or $ 3.90 per year for la rger WPS farms, respectively, and average CPHE costs are 3085

estimated to rise by $14. 70 and $17. 90 per year respectively. These requirements would not take 3086

effect for two years while the new training materials are developed. As noted above, we are 3087

likely ov erestimating the costs because commercial certification would meet the requirements for 3088

expanded training for CPHEs and private certification would meet the requirements for WPS 3089

farms

. 3090

3091

As with worker training, the baselines for potential handler training requirements differ 3092

according to existing California requirements. As explained in the methodology, baseline costs 3093

are constrained to be less than or equal to those of the potential requirements to avoid 3094

erroneously estimating a reduction in costs

. 3095

3096

As a sensitivity analysis, EPA estimated the incremental cost of these requirements under the 3097

assumption that handler training occurs only if a pesticide application is made during the season. 3098

An additional 15 minutes of training (TRAIN

- 14) would cost about $ 5 53 ,000 per year ($ 2.70 per 3099

larger WPS farm) while an additional 18 minutes of training (TRAIN

- 15) would cost about 3100

$6 80 ,000 per year ($3. 30 per WPS farm). CPHE costs are not affected by these assumptions. 3101

3102

TRAIN

- 16 and 17. Record keeping requirements, Handler training. Currently, WPS farms and 3103

CPHEs are not required to maintain records of the handlers who have received training, except in 3104

California. These potential requirements are similar to TRAIN

- 10 and 11. In total, the cost to 3105

document and store records on pesticide handler training is estimated to cost about $ 162 ,000 to 3106

$ 289 ,000 annually, which ranges from $0.80 to $1. 40 per larger WPS farm and from $3.00 to 3107

$ 3.80 per CPHE. 3108

3109

If handler training only occurs in conjunction with a pesticide applica tion, keeping records for 3110

two years is estimated to cost $ 150 ,000 per year, with WPS farms incurring costs around $0. 70 3111

per year. Requiring records be kept for five years is estimated to cost about $ 276 ,000 annually 3112

under this alternate assumption and WPS farms would face an additional $1. 40 per year. Costs 3113

to CPHEs are unaffected by this assumption. 3114

3115

TRAIN

- 18, 19, and 20. Training verification. Under these potential requirements, EPA would 3116

end voluntary programs to issue training verification cards. T he cost of the program is the 3117

opportunity cost of labor for employers to distribute the cards and employees to receive them; 3118

EPA also incurs costs to manufacture the cards. About 22 states and territories currently 3119

participate in the program, based on 201 0 requests for new cards. Of the representative states, 3120

Texas, Iowa, and Ohio do not participate although four of the 19 states in those three regions 3121

have requested verification cards. For this analysis, the baseline cost for these three regions, 3122

Plains , Midwest, and Ohio Valley, is set to zero to reflect low participation. Arkansas, along 3123

with five of the seven states it represents, participates, as does California and Colorado, along 3124

with one of the two states it represents. Baseline costs for these three regions, South, California, 312585 and Southwest, are estimated assuming full participation, reflecting high participation among the 3126

states. Baseline costs for the other three regions, Subtropical, Northeast, and Northwest, are 3127

calculated using a 50 percen t participation rate because about half the states in these regions 3128

participate in the current program. Given these regional adjustments to account for the range of 3129

participation, EPA estimates that eliminating the training verification program (TRAIN

- 18) 3130

could save about $ 567 ,000 annually, including costs to EPA of providing the cards. Savings per 3131

WPS farm amount to $ 1.40 per year and for CPHEs, $ 0.80 per year, but savings would only 3132

occur in states currently participating in the program. 3133

3134

Making the p rogram mandatory (TRAIN

- 19) would cost about $ 641 ,000 annually, or roughly 3135

$ 1 .60 per WPS farm and $1. 50 per CPHE. Costs, however, would only be incurred in states not 3136

fully participating in the current program. 3137

3138

Replacing the voluntary program with a requ irement that employees be provided evidence of 3139

training (TRAIN

- 20) would, under the current frequency of training, save about $ 180 ,000 3140

annually or about $0. 50 per year per WPS farm and $0.0 4 per CPHE. Savings arise because 3141

individualized cards are more ex pensive to complete than simply providing a copy of the training 3142

register. However, WPS farms and CPHEs observe additional material cost, as EPA and states 3143

are currently providing cards or otherwise subsidizing them. Further, savings only arise in states 3144

currently participating in the voluntary program; establishments in other states would bear costs. 3145

3146

If training currently occurs only if a pesticide application is made on a WPS farm, the cost saving 3147

of eliminating the verification cards is estimated to b e $ 4 98,000 per year while the cost of 3148

requiring verification cards would be about $ 566 ,000 annually. Requiring verification through a 3149

copy of the training register (TRAIN

- 20) would save around $ 158 ,000 annually, under this 3150

alternative assumption. 3151

3152



### 3.3.4 H azard Communication 3153

3154

Hazard communication requirements impose costs on WPS farms who must inform their 3155

employees about the use of pesticides on the farm, nursery, or in the greenhouse. Forestry 3156

operations are also covered, but as the impact is minimal, th ey are not considered in this analysis. 3157

As with training, the impacts include the opportunity cost of labor for providing and receiving 3158

the information as well as materials used to disseminate the information. Hazard communication 3159

requirements will only apply to WPS farms when they make pesticide applications. 3160

3161

Table 3.3

- 16 presents a summary of the national costs for each potential requirement considered 3162

in this category. The table shows the present value of regional compliance cost for the potential 3163

re quirements, PV(RC P ), and for the baseline considering current state requirements, PV(RC B ). 3164

The present value of the incremental costs, PV(RIC), are calculated as the difference between 3165

compliance with the potential requirements and the baselines. The m ost costly item considered 3166

is the requirement to provide workers with crop sheets , which describ e the ways in which a 3167

worker might be exposed to a particular pesticide for each crop (HAZCOM

- 04). The 3168

requirement is estimated to cost $ 13.0 million annually. The proposed change from central 3169

posting to making application information available on request (HAZCOM

- 01) entails 3170

compa ratively low cost at $ 1.1 million per year. 317186 3172

Table 3.3

- 16. Present Value of Costs, Hazard Communication Requirements 1

. 3173

Potential Requirement PV(RC P ) PV(RC B ) PV(RIC) Annualized

RIC

$1,000 $1,000

01 Application Information

Availability 164,954 154,908 10,046 1,143

02 Pesticide Information

Availability

– SDS and

label 131,032 84,201 46,831 5,330

03 Pesticide Information

Availability

– label 59,865 59,791 14,074 1, 602

04 Pesticide Information

Availability

– crop sheets 163,774 49,303 114,471 13,029

05 Record Keeping

– 2 years 29,894 3,677 26,217 2,984

06 Record Keeping

– 5 years 32,770 3,677 29,093 3,311

07 Provide Crop Sheet with

Label 2 3 18,330 293,020 25,310 2,881

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3174

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 3175

2 Requirement would apply to registrants at a national scale only. 3176

3177

In this section, we discuss the results of the estimation and present details if the situation 3178

diverges from the typical method. Details on the estimation and the data used are presented in 3179

Appendix A. Throughout this analysis, EPA assumes a WPS farm will make, on average, 1 5.4 3180

pestici de applications per year, given that 77.1 percent of WPS farms use pesticides in a given 3181

year (NASS, 2008b) and assuming that WPS farms using pesticides make an average of 20 3182

applications per year. Few crops would be treated so frequently, especially fiel d crops, but the 3183

number is not unreasonable at the farm level. The following examples show how EPA arrived at 3184

this number. 3185

• Field crops, corn and soybean in Iowa. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture 3186

(NASS, 2008b), there are 63,672 crop farms in Io wa (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 9). 3187

Given corn and soybean acreage in the state (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 26), the average 3188

farm would have about 217 acres of corn and 135 acres of soybean. If fields are about 40 3189

acres in size, this suggests a farm might have six corn fields and four soybean fields, 3190

which is consistent with a mixture of fields in a corn

– soybean rotation with some fields 3191

in continuous corn. Crop budgets for the state indicate use of an herbicide for the corn 3192

and soybean crops grown in r otation and an herbicide and insecticide treatment for fields 3193

in continuous corn (Duffy, 2012). This implies 12 pesticide applications for a typical 3194

farm. 3195

• Fruit crops in Washington. There are 5,363 Washington farms engaged in fruit 3196

production, implying a bout 30 acres of apple, 7 acres of cherry, and 5 acres of pear per 3197

farm, on average (NASS, 2008b, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 32). This suggests a typical 3198

farm might have four blocks of fruit production: two of apple, one of cherry, and one of 3199

pear. Typi cal spray programs (Northwest Wholesale, Inc., 2011a, b, c) imply 12 3200

applications to apple blocks, six to the cherry block, and seven to the pear, for a total of 3201

37 applications. Including one herbicide application to each leaves us with 40 320287 applications p er year. 3203

• Vegetable crops in Florida. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, Florida 3204

vegetable farms average 180 acres. However, we have no information on field size or 3205

number of fields per farm. Further, Florida’s climate allows two or even three crops each 3206

year and a wide variety of vegetables, including beans, cucumbers, peppers, squash, and 3207

tomatoes. Crop budgets for small farms from the University of Florida (University of 3208

Florida, 2008

- 09) indicate that most vegetables are treated a total of seven to eight times, 3209

including an herbicide, an insecticide or two, and multiple fungicides. Tomatoes, 3210

however, may be treated 17 times over the course of a season, including an herbicide 3211

treatment, 11 insecticides treatments and 4 fungicide treatments. Insecticides and 3212

fungicides may be applied simultaneous, which reduces the total number of applications. 3213

Florida vegetables are probably more intensely managed than most vegetable fields, 3214

however. A budget for lettuce from the University of California ( Smith, Klonsky, and 3215

DeMoura, 2009) indicates that lettuce receives about six pesticide treatments, considering 3216

tank mixes. Multiple fields are often cultivated so that harvest occurs over a period of 3217

time to take advantage of marketing opportunities and t o stagger production activities. 3218

Thus, vegetable farms are probably similar to fruit production in terms of the number of 3219

pesticide applications. 3220

Grain and soybean farms make up nearly half of WPS farms with fruit and vegetable farms 3221

accounting for anothe r 22 percent (NASS, 2008b). The average across all farms, given 12 3222

applications on grain and soybean farms and 40 applications on fruit and vegetable farms, is 3223

about 20 applications per farm. This does not consider farms that are primarily livestock with 3224

some crop production and that probably would make fewer pesticide applications, on average. 3225

3226

HAZCOM

- 01. Application information. Currently, farm owners or operators must post 3227

information about a covered pesticide application made within the previous 30 days when 3228

employees are present 3 . This requires time to compile and record the information. Discussions 3229

with stakeholders suggest that the time required will average about five minutes or 0.083 hours. 3230

A sheet of paper is needed to record the information , which takes about a minute (0.017 hours) to 3231

post at a central location. This must be done for every application. Table 3.3

- 17 presents the 3232

estimated baseline cost per establishment for all regions except for California and 3233

Texas/Mountain West. Represe ntative states for those regions have provisions similar to the 3234

proposed requirements. 3235

3236

These costs may be underestimated. Stakeholders indicate that multiple postings are often 3237

necessary for a single application because the central area is outdoors and t he posting can be 3238

subject to weathering

. 3239

3 An insecticide application in or around a cattle barn, for example, would not be covered under the WPS.88 Table 3.3

- 17. Per

- Establishment Baseline Costs for HAZCOM

- 01, Provide Application 3240

Information. 3241

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Gather/record information $28.21/hr 0.083 hr 1 5.4 $ 3 6.26

Information sheet $ 0.09/sheet 1 sheet 1 5.4 $ 1. 39

Post application information $28.21/hr 0.017 hr 1 5.4 $ 7. 25

cost r,i, a B $ 4 4.90

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3242

3243

Under the proposed requirement, HAZCOM

- 01, WPS farms would provide the application 3244

information to any worker or handler who requests to review it rather than post the information. 3245

EPA assumes that such a request would take about six minu tes (0.1 hour) or about five minutes 3246

more than posting. EPA does not have experience as to how often a request would occur. It is 3247

likely to be rare, but EPA estimates costs assuming a request for 25 percent of applications, or 3248

3.9 times per year. This i s likely to be a significant overestimate. Thus, in lieu of posting the 3249

application information, providing the information on request is expected to cost $1 0.88 per year, 3250

making the total cost of the new requirement $48 .53 per farm per year. This is also the baseline 3251

cost for California and Texas/Mountain West as the representative states already have a 3252

provision that employees or their representatives can request the application information. 3253

3254

There are no actions requir ed of any other actor. Table 3.3

- 18 presents the estimated regional 3255

costs for the first year the requirement is in effect. California and Texas already require the 3256

display of the additional information. 3257

3258

Table 3.3

- 18. Regional Costs for HAZCOM

- 01, Appli cation Information, Year 1. 3259

Region N WPS est RC P RC B

cost r,i, a B $ 4 4.90

cost r,i, a P $48 .53 $1,000

South 58,804 2,640,541 2,853,784

California 1 24,469 1,187,480 1,187,480

Southwest 12,629 567,096 612,893

Subtropical 9,866 443,044 478,823

Midwest 85,641 3,845,620 4,156,181

Northeast 40,650 1,825,340 1,972,750

Ohio Valley 91,166 4,093,724 4,424,322

Texas/Mountain West 1 48,543 2,355,808 2,355,808

Northwest 22,890 1,027,861 1,110,869

U.S. 394,658 $ 17,986,514 $ 19,152,909

Source: EPA estimation. 3260

1 Baseline costs are $48 .53 as for the potential requirement. 3261

3262

The costs of this requirement, both current and potential, recur annually. In estimating the PV of 3263

costs over a 10

- year time horizon, the only factor that changes through time is the number of 326489 establishments, which has been declining at a rate of 0.47% annually over the last decade. This 3265

trend is expected to continue as agriculture consolidates. EPA estimates the PV of the baseline 3266

cost is $1 55 million dollars over 10 years at a 3% discount r ate, considering requirements in 3267

California and Texas (Table 3.3

- 15). The potential requirement is expected to cost about $1 65 3268

million over 10 years. Thus, incremental costs of increasing the information provided about 3269

pesticide applications are estimate d to be about $ 10.0 million. This corresponds to $ 1.1 million 3270

annually and, on average, to be $ 2.90 per WPS farm per year. If baseline costs are higher than 3271

estimated due to multiple postings for each application, the incremental cost of this provision 3272

w ill be lower. 3273

3274

HAZCOM

- 02, 03, and 04. Pesticide

- specific information. Agricultural employers are currently 3275

required to post information about pesticide applications, including the active ingredient used 3276

and the product name and registration number. The proposed revision (HAZCOM

- 02) would 3277

require additional hazard information, consisting o f the label and the associated SDS, be 3278

collected and made available. The cost of this requirement would be the time spent to obtain and 3279

copy the material. The SDS is t ypically available with the label at distributors and on line. Four 3280

representative states (California, Florida, Iowa, and Texas) already require this information to be 3281

available. EPA estimates the total incremental cost to be $ 5. 3 million annually. The cost is 3282

proportional to the number of applications. 3283

3284

An alternative would be to require only that the pesticide label be available (HAZCOM

- 03). The 3285

cost of this option would be just over $1. 6 million annually. A second alternative, HAZCOM

3286

04, would be to require crop sheets for all applications. This information would be crop

3287

chemical specific, providing information on routes of exposure and high risk activities, given 3288

typical cropping pract ices, and emergency procedures in case of exposure. These sheets would 3289

likely be harder to obtain and, wh ile generally briefer than the SDS, would be needed more 3290

frequently since they are specific to the crop, not just the chemical. EPA estimates the cos t of 3291

this potential requirement to be $ 13.0 million annually or $3 3.00 per WPS farm. 3292

3293

HAZCOM

- 05 and 06. Keep records of application information. There are no current 3294

requirements that WPS farms keep records of pesticide applications; information about an 3295

application must only be posted for 30 days following the expiration of the REI. EPA 3296

consider ed requiring records to be kept for two or for five years. The primary costs would be 3297

materials such as copies of the application information and something in w hich to keep records. 3298

Baseline, compliance, and incremental costs over a ten

- year period at the national level are 3299

shown in Table 3.3

- 14. EPA estimates annualized incremental costs are $2. 9 to 3.3 million 3300

respectively, which averages out to be $ 7.60 per establishment under HAZCOM

- 05 to $ 8.40 per 3301

establishment for HAZCOM

- 06. EPA assumes that all WPS farms will fall under record 3302

keeping requirements since over time all are expected to make some pesticide applications. 3303

3304

HAZCOM

- 07. Provision of crop sheets. To support the potential requirement for crop

- chemical 3305

specific hazard information (HAZCOM

- 04), this proposal would require registrants to provide 3306

additional safety information along with the pesticide label, which provides use directions. This 3307

would re quire the development of new printing templates, which would be a one

- time cost for 3308

each existing pesticide product, the cost of which would depend on the number of crops for 3309

which the crop is registered. EPA would expect to phase this in over a three yea r period to allow 331090 registrants to include the new material as they reprint product labels. It would also increase 3311

printing costs over the entire time 10

- year time period we analyze because of the additional 3312

volume of material. EPA estimates this potential requirement would impose additional costs of 3313

about $ 25.3 million on registrants over 10 years, or an annualized cost of about $ 2.9 million per 3314

year. 3315

3316



### 3.3.5 Notification 3317

3318

Notification requirements impose costs on WPS farm employer s who must provide their 3319

e mployees with information about where pesticides are used and provide pertinent safety 3320

information. The impacts include the opportunity cost of labor for providing and receiving the 3321

information as well as materials used to disseminate the information. As with hazard 3322

communication, notification requirements will only apply to WPS farms when they make 3323

pesticide applications. 3324

3325

Table 3.3

- 19 presents a summary of the national costs for each potential requirement. As in 3326

previous tables, it shows the present va lue of regional compliance cost s for the potential 3327

requirements, PV(RC P ), and for the baseline considering current state requirements, PV(RC B ). 3328

The present value of the incremental costs, PV(RIC), are calculated as the difference between 3329

compliance with the potential requirements and the baselines. The most costly item considered 3330

is the requirement to post warning signs for Restricted Entry Intervals every 100 feet around the 3331

perimeter of a treated field (NOTIFY

- 09). EPA estimates that this would cost $ 2 61 million per 3332

year in additional signs and labor. Other potentially costly requirements include maintaining 3333

records of oral notification of REIs (NOTIFY

- 04 and 05). These two potential requirements 3334

would cost about $ 20 million per year in time and materials. Relatively low cost requirements 3335

considered by EPA include revisions to warning signs and safety posters (NOTIFY

- 06 and 14), 3336

which are expected to cost $ 9 9 ,000 and 108,000 per year respectively . EPA is also propos ing to 3337

allow employers in greenhouses to orally inform workers of REIs of less than four hours. EPA 3338

estimates this will save greenhouse operations about $ 10 ,000 per year nationally. 3339

3340

Table 3.3

- 19. Present Value of Costs, Notification Requirements 1

. 3341

Pote ntial

Requirement PV(RC P ) PV(RC B ) PV(RIC) Annualized

RIC

$1,000 $1,000

01 REI > 48 hours

Warning Sign 4 20,709 32 2,892 9 7,816 1 1,133

02 REI > 72 hours

Warning Sign 3 92,487 32 2,892 6 9,594 7, 921

03 REI ≤ 4 hours Oral

Notification

(greenhouses) 980 1,065

- 84

- 10

04 Record Keeping for

Oral Notification

– 2

years 17 7,198 0 17 7,198 20, 168

05 Record Keeping for

Oral Notification

– 5

years 1 80,074 0 1 80,074 20, 49591 Pote ntial

Requirement PV(RC P ) PV(RC B ) PV(RIC) Annualized

RIC

$1,000 $1,000

06 Revise Warning Sign

(“Entry restricted

Area”) 19, 535 18, 663 8 73 9 9

07 Revise Warning Sign

(Skull and Cross

Bones) 4 6,923 18, 663 2 8,260 3, 216

08 Posting Warning

Signs w/in 100′

worker housing 9 9,064 9 9,064 0 0

09 Posting Warning

Signs every 100′ 2,3 94,818 9 9,064 2,2 95,755 2 61,294

10 Oral Information for

Entry restricted

–

workers 10,29 5 4,162 6,134 698

11 Oral and Written

Information for Entry

restricted

– workers 13,547 4,162 9,386 1,068

12 Record Keeping for

Entry restricted

– workers 2 years 4,120 0 4,120 469

13 Record Keeping for

Entry restricted

– workers 5 years 6,996 0 6,996 796

14 Revise Safety Poster 8,729 7,777 951 108

15 Safety Poster,

-

Worker

Decontamination 2 5

, 33 6 7,777 1 7

, 55 8 1,998

16 Safety Poster,

-

Handler

Decontamination 14,669 7,777 6,891 784

17 Safety Poster with

REI signs 4 9,872 7,7 77 4 2,094 4, 791

18 Clarify Notifications

by Commercial

Applicator 316,546 316,546 0 0

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3342

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 3343

3344

NOTIFY

- 01 and 02. Posting warning signs. Two potential requirements require the physical 3345

posting of warning signs while a REI is in effect. The proposal, NOTIFY

- 01, would require 3346

posting if the REI exceeds 48 hours. An alternative, NOTIFY

- 02, would require posting if the 3347

REI exceeds 72 hours. Currently, employers may inform workers of REIs orally or by posting a 3348

sign, except for certain pesticides that require double notification, i.e. , both verbal 3349

communication and warning signs. Greenhouses are required to post warnings of all applications 3350

and these new requirements would not apply to those operations. Costs are expected to vary by 3351

farm size because it may be cheaper to post the warnings than orally notify a large number of 335292 workers; the estimation of baseline costs for a medium to small

- sm all farm is presented in Table 3353

3.3

- 20, as an example. EPA assumes that most employers in small farms provide oral 3354

notification to their workers, which would occur when a pesticide application has been made. 3355

Since some workers may not be present the day o f application, they will have to be informed of 3356

the REI upon returning to work. This means employers may have to provide multiple 3357

notifications. Employers with many workers, however, may find it too complicated and too time 3358

consuming to orally notify the m all; thus, many employers in large farms likely post REIs 3359

already . Based on stakeholder discussion, about ten percent of the time the pesticide used will be 3360

double notification, requiring signs be posted as well oral notification. EPA assumes that two 3361

signs are generally needed for posting. We assume that about 10 percent of farms have worker 3362

housing adjacent to fields such that a third sign would be needed (see NOTIFY

- 08). Signs will 3363

generally last for two years. The probability of replacing a sign is thus 50 percent, weighted by 3364

the proportion of non

- greenhouse WPS farms making an application in any given year, which is 3365

77. 1 percent (NASS, 2008). The expected per

- farm cost is estimated to be between $ 35 and 3366

$1 10 depending on the size of the farm. There is also cost per worker of $7 to $10, which 3367

accounts for the time the worker spends receiving the oral notification over the entire season. 3368

3369

Table 3.3

- 20. Per

- Medium & Small

- Small WPS Farm Baseline Costs for NOTIFY

- 01, Post 3370

REI warning signs. 3371

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Oral Notification $28.21/hr 3 min 1 4.3 $ 2 0.14

Signs $ 5.66 each 2 0.3 07 $ 3. 47

Post Sign $28.21/hr 20 min 1. 2 3 $ 1 1. 54

Signs $ 5.66 per 3 0.01 8 $ 0. 30

Post Sign $28.21/hr 30 min 0.0 71 $ 1.00

cost r,i, a B $ 3 6. 45

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3372

3373

The costs associated with these potential requirements are the material expense of additional 3374

signs and labor costs of posting signs more frequently. Offsetting some of these costs is a 3375

reduction in the time required to verbally inform employees of REIs. Table 3.3

- 21 presents the 3376

calculations. We assume that 40 percent of the time signs will be required due to an REI greater 3377

than 48 hours while oral notification occurs 70 percent of the time. Double notification is still 3378

required for ten percent of applications. As a result, the expected per

- establishment cost 3379

increases to between $ 7 0 and $1 10

, where large farms with many workers are not expected to be 3380

impacted. Due to less frequent oral notifications, the expected per

- worker cost decreases to $ 5 to 3381

$7. 3382

338393 Table 3.3

- 21. Per

- Medium & Small

- Small WPS Farm Potential Requirement Costs for 3384

NOTIFY

- 01, Post REI warning signs. 3385

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Oral Notification $28.21/hr 3 min 1 0.0 $ 1 4.09

Signs $ 5.66 per 4 0.3 07 $ 6.94

Post Sign $28.21/hr 20 min 4.91 $ 4 6.14

Signs $ 5.66 per 6 0.01 8 $ 0. 60

Post Sign $28.21/hr 30 min 0. 284 $ 4.01

cost r,i, a B $ 7 1. 79

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3386

3387

For NOTIFY

- 02, requiring warning signs for REIs greater than 72 hours, EPA anticipates that 3388

signs would be required 30 percent of the time while oral notification would occur 80 percent of 3389

the time. Per

- establishment cost is calculated to be between $6 0 and $1 10 per year and per

3390

worker cost to be between $ 6.00 and $ 8.00 , dep ending on farm size. 3391

3392

Nationally, EPA estimates the cost of posting warning signs to be about $ 7. 9 million annually if 3393

posting is required for REIs over 72 hours and to be about $ 1 1.1 million annually if posting is 3394

required for REIs over 48 hours. The est imated incremental costs average $2 0.10 to $2 8.30 per 3395

year per non

- greenhouse W PS farm across all farm sizes. 3396

3397

These estimates take into consideration the allowance that new signs are to be phased in by the 3398

third year. 3399

3400

NOTIFY

- 03. Oral notification of REI s in greenhouses. Currently, greenhouses are required to 3401

post REI warning signs for all pesticide applications; signs are also required to be removed 3402

shortly after the end of the REI. This proposal would give owners/operators of greenhouses the 3403

option of simply notifying their employees orally for REIs of four hours or less. For many 3404

operations, this would lead to savings in the time required to post and remove signs. However, 3405

some operations may be large enough that orally notifying all their employees would be more 3406

time consuming. EPA estimates that this revision would save about $ 10 ,000 per year nationally 3407

or about $1 .80 per year per WPS greenhouse, on average. As noted above, greenhouses with 3408

many workers may not alter their practices while greenho uses with relatively few workers would 3409

save more than the average. 3410

3411

NOTIFY

- 04 and 05. Record keeping of oral notifications. A potential addition to the WPS 3412

would require owners/operators to obtain acknowledgement from their employees that the 3413

employees w ere notified of REIs. Under NOTIFY

- 04, these records would be kept for two 3414

years; under NOTIFY

- 05 they would be kept for five years. As explained in NOTIFY

- 01 and 3415

02, the size of the farm, particularly the number of workers, influences the decision to po st or 3416

orally inform employees of the REI. The cost of the requirement at the farm level is estimated in 3417

Table 3.3

- 22 for small farms and includes preparing the written copy of the notification, 3418

obtaining employees’ signatures, and filing the document. Th e annual frequency for each action 3419

is consistent with the baseline for NOTIFY

- 01, explained above. The cost for large farms is 342094 estimated to be $ 38.73 , slightly lower than for small farms because it is more cost

- effective to 3421

post fields when there are many workers. There is also a per

- worker cost for providing the 3422

signature, which EPA estimates to be $ 1. 46 per year for workers on small farms and $1. 19 per 3423

year for workers on large farms. Greenhouses only provide oral notification for double 3424

notification p roducts as explained under NOTIFY

- 03. Greenhouse costs are estimated to be 3425

$3.72 per year, on average, with a per

- employee cost of $0.1 3 per year. 3426

3427

Table 3.3

- 22. Per

- Small WPS Farm, excluding greenhouses, Potential Requirement Costs 3428

for NOTIFY

- 04, Keep R ecords of REI notifications. 3429

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Prepare copy of warning 28.21 0.033 1 5.0 1 4.12

Information sheet 0.09 1 1 5.0 1. 35

Obtain acknowledgement 28.21 0.050 1 6.5 2 3.30

Store acknowledgement 28.21 0.017 1 5.0 7. 06

Folder 0.20 1 0. 75 0.1 5

cost r,i, a B $ 4 5.98

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3430

3431

EPA estimates that the total cost of NOTIFY

- 04 is $ 20. 2 million annually. The average cost per 3432

WPS farm excluding greenhouses is estimated to be $5 1.20 per year and is similar for small and 3433

large farms; the annual cost per greenhouse is estimated to be $ 7.10 . NOTIFY

- 05, with a five

3434

year retention requirement , would be slightly more expensive due to the need for a storage 3435

container to hold the files. EPA estimates the cost to be about $ 20. 5 million per year with an 3436

average cost per WPS farm of $5 2.00 per year and $ 7. 90 per year per greenhouse. 3437

3438

NOTIFY

- 06 and 07. Revise warning signs. EPA is considering revisions to warning signs 3439

posted around treated areas for the duration of the REI. The proposed revision, NOTIFY

- 06, 3440

would replace the current circle with a stop

- sign like octagon and replace the words “Keep Out” 3441

with “Entry Restricted Area.” An alternative, NOTIFY

- 07, would instead replace the circle with 3442

a Skull and Cross Bones symbol and provide information about the pesticide that was used. For 3443

the former, EPA assumes new signs will be about 5%, or $0.3 0, more expensive. Nationally, this 3444

revision may cost about $ 9 9 ,000 per year. Per

- farm cost would average less than $0.30. For 3445

NOTIFY

- 07, the potential requirement would also entail labor costs to post application

- specific 3446

information and higher materia l cost for a sign on which information could be written. This 3447

could cost $3 .2 million annually, which is $ 8. 10 per WPS farm and $34.40 for WPS 3448

greenhouses, on average. Greenhouses would bear high costs due to the frequency with which 3449

they are required to post REI warning signs. 3450

3451

NOTIFY

- 08 and 09. Posting warning signs. Currently, when warning signs are posted, they 3452

must be placed at the usual access points to a treated field or at each corner and where visible if 3453

worker housing is adjacent to the field. The number of access points to a field is highly variable, 3454

but EPA assumes that, on average, there will be two points such as a gate or a point across 3455

irrigation infrastructure for workers and/or equipment to enter. We assume about 20 percent of 3456

farms w ill need a third sign to place near worker housing. Posting signs is likely the exception, 345795 rather than the rule, because oral notification is likely to be simpler. The baseline costs, i.e.

, 3458

costs of complying with current requirements, consist of the lab or to post the signs and the 3459

material cost of the signs. Signs can be reused, so most establishments probably only need two 3460

or three, i.e. , to post one field at a time. Greenhouses, however, must post warning signs for all 3461

pesticide applications and like ly need four signs in order to post warnings for a couple of plots 3462

simultaneously. 3463

3464

NOTIFY

- 08 merely defines adjacent worker housing to be within 100 feet and is unlikely to 3465

engender any costs. 3466

3467

EPA also considered a potential requirement that would requir e posting warning signs every 100 3468

feet around a treated area to alert workers if, for example, they were to cross a field without 3469

passing through a usual point of entry (NOTIFY

- 09). Size and shape of field are extremely 3470

variable, but as a scenario that mi ght be somewhat representative, EPA considered a square field, 3471

40 acres in size. Each side would be 1,320 feet, requiring 13 or 14 signs or about 55 signs in 3472

total. Greenhouse plots will be somewhat smaller, necessitating about 14 signs for a rectangular 3473

one

- acre plot. Accounting for the cost of additional signs and additional labor, EPA estimates 3474

that this potential requirement could cost over $ 2. 3 billion dollars over ten years at a three 3475

percent discount rate or about $ 2 61 million annually. The annua l incremental cost is estimated 3476

to average over $ 69 0 for WPS greenhouses and about $ 6 60 for other WPS farms. 3477

3478

NOTIFY

- 10 and 11. Provide information to workers entering treated fields during the REI. 3479

Occasionally, workers may be sent into a field during t he restricted entry period for which the 3480

restricted

- entry interval is in effect. Workers must have either read the product labeling or been 3481

informed of the labeling requirements related to hazard or safety. NOTIFY

- 10 would permit oral 3482

instruction, but wo uld require more detailed information be provided, which would require more 3483

time for the employer to both gather and transmit the information. An alternative, NOTIFY

- 11 3484

would require that the information also be provided in writing, in the form of crop sh eets 3485

generated by the registrants. EPA estimates the incremental costs for NOTIFY

- 10 to be about 3486

$ 698 ,000 annually and $ 1.1 million per year for NOTIFY

- 11. Per WPS farms, annual costs are 3487

expected to be $ 1.80 and $2. 70 , respectively. 3488

3489

NOTIFY

- 12 and 13. Document information to workers entering treated fields during the REI. 3490

Under these potential measures, EPA would require that employers obtain acknowledgement 3491

from the workers that they received the information and the employer would retain the record 3492

sh eet for two or five years (NOTIFY

- 12 and NOTIFY

- 13, respectively). Record keeping is 3493

expected to cost about $ 469 ,000 per year for two

- year retention and, for five years, $7 96 ,000 per 3494

year, which includes material to document receipt of the information and to store the 3495

documentation. The cost is equivalent to $1. 20 to $2. 00 per WPS farm. 3496

3497

NOTIFY

- 14. Revise pesticide safety information display. The proposal would require 3498

agricultural establishments to include, along with the safety display, contact inform ation for 3499

medical assistance and for state agencies overseeing pesticide use. The incremental cost of this 3500

action would be the time required to add this information to existing safety displays, which 3501

would be done by the WPS farm. EPA estimates that this potential requirement would cost 3502

growers about $ 108 ,000 per year over ten years, using a three percent discount rate, and 350396 considering that revisions would be phased in over the first two years. The annualized cost is 3504

estimated to be about $0.30 per WPS f arm per year. Costs may be somewhat overstated because 3505

signs are available free through EPA. 3506

3507

NOTIFY

- 15, 16, and 17. Safety displays at decontamination sites. These requirements would 3508

add additional pesticide safety displays where decontamination supp lies are located. NOTIFY

3509

15 governs sites for field workers and NOTIFY

- 16 addresses handler sites on WPS farms. 3510

NOTIFY

- 17 is a variant on the field worker case and would require displays wherever REI 3511

warning signs are posted. The cost of these requireme nts arises from the cost of new signs and 3512

the labor to post them. EPA anticipates that these requirements will impose costs that vary by 3513

the size of the operation, which will determine the number of sites at which safety posters will be 3514

required. EPA ide ntifies several sizes of farms, based on revenues, as explained in Section 3.3.2. 3515

Table 3.3

- 23 presents EPA’s estimates of the per

- establishment unit costs, assuming that the 3516

requirement is phased in over time and that signs last three years, on average. Large farms incur 3517

much higher cost for posting safety displays with REI signs because they likely post more 3518

frequently than do small farms . See the discussion of posting under NOTIFY

- 01 and 02 . If 3519

safety displays are required with REI warning signs, how ever, large farms could reduce the 3520

number of postings by shifting to oral notification. 3521

3522

Table 3.3

- 23. Per

- Establishment Costs of Posters at Decontamination Sites 3523

Establishment Baseline Worker

Decontamination

Sites

(NOTIFY

- 15) Handler

Decontamination

Sites

(NOTIFY

- 16) With REI Signs

(NOTIFY

- 17)

Small WPS

Farm/Nursery $ 2.23 $ 7.18 $ 3.54 $1 1. 49

S mall WPS

Greenhouse $31.17

Large WPS

Farm/Nursery $ 2.68 $ 9.15 $ 9.15 $3 4.37

Large WPS

Greenhouse $ 42.20

Source: EPA estimates. 3524

3525

Given the costs and the number of WPS farms impacted by each potential requirement, EPA 3526

estimates the national cost for worker decontamination sites (NOTIFY

- 15) is estimated to be 3527

$ 2.0 million annually or $ 5.10 per WPS farm and the cost for handler decontamination sites 3528

( NOTIFY

- 16) is estimated to be $ 784 ,000 or $ 2.00 per WPS farm. Safety displays can be 3529

obtained free from EPA; thus, the regulated industry will not bear all the cost a new requirement. 3530

Placing safety posters with REI warning signs (NOTIFY

- 17) is estimated to cost $ 4. 8 million 3531

annually or $1 2.10 per WPS farm. 3532

3533

NOTIFY

- 18. Notification of agricultural establishments by CPHE employers

. WPS currently 3534

requires the handler employer to inform the client farm before a pesticide application so that 3535

proper steps ca n be taken to protect workers in the area or who might enter the field. Further, if 3536

there are any changes to the application, e.g. , delay in application, change of product (brand), the 353797 CPHE must immediately inform the client . The latter requirement has r aised concerns about the 3538

practicality of informing the agricultural employer of small changes in aspects of the application 3539

and EPA guidance has provided flexibility so long as critical information pertaining to worker 3540

safety is provided in a timely manner . The proposed revision would specify that the CPHE must 3541

inform the agricultural employer of the end time of the application, which is the time the REI 3542

begins. It also revises the regulations to match EPA guidance. No costs are expected to arise 3543

from th is revision. 3544

3545

Sensitivity Analysis 3546

The number of applications can be an important factor in the cost of some potential requirements 3547

and EPA varied the average number of applications by 25 percent as a sensitivity analysis. That 3548

is, under the assumption th at WPS farms that use pesticides make, on average, 15 or 25 pesticide 3549

applications per year instead of 20 applications. 3550

3551

The incremental costs for the potential requirements for posting REI warning signs (NOTIFY

- 01 3552

and 02) do not vary in direct proportion to the number of applications. This is because the 3553

baseline costs vary in direct proportion to the number of applications while the cost for posting 3554

warning signs for REIs greater than the threshold (48 and 72 hours, respectively) changes by a 3555

fraction of the number of applications. Thus, a 25 percent change in the number of applications 3556

results in a change of around 20 percent in the cost of the revision. The savings generated by 3557

allowing employers in greenhouses to orally notify workers when the REI is less than four hours 3558

varies (NOTIFY

- 03) proportionally with the number of applications. The cost of record keeping 3559

of oral notification (NOTIFY

- 04 and 05) also varies nearly proportionally with the number of 3560

applications. The cost of providing more info rmation upon early entry (NOTIFY

- 10 and 11) 3561

varies proportionally with the number of applications as does record keeping for two years 3562

(NOTIFY

- 12). Maintaining records for five years (NOTIFY

- 13) is less sensitive to the number 3563

of applications becaus e of f ixed costs of storage

. 3564

3565

The incremental costs of the potential notification requirements that deal with revisions to REI 3566

warning signs (NOTIFY

- 06 and 07) or safety posters (NOTIFY

- 14), and the location of safety 3567

posters (NOTIFY

- 15 and 16), and are not influenced by the number of applications. The cost of 3568

the potential requirement to post REI warning signs every 100 feet (NOTIFY

- 09) varies with the 3569

number of applications, but less than propo rtionally. The same is true for NOTIFY

- 17, which 3570

would require safety displays with every REI warning sign. The revision s to clarify when signs 3571

must be posted in sight of adjacent worker housing (NOTIFY

- 08) and to codify notification by 3572

commercial applic ators (NOTIFY

- 18) are not expected to entail costs regardless of the number 3573

of applications. 3574

3575



### 3.3.5 Age 3576

3577

EPA is considering placing age restrictions on pesticide handlers and on field workers who enter 3578

areas subject to an REI if they are not subject to the family exemptions. These restrictions could 3579

raise labor costs for agricultural enterprises by necessitating the employment of older, better paid 3580

employees in place of younger, lower paid staff. In estimating the impact of these potential 3581

requirements, our approach differs slightly from the methodology described in Chapter 3.3.1. 3582

The baseline in these situations is not the cost of complying with current requirements; the 358398 baseline is current labor costs. Impacts are estimated as the difference with labo r costs under the 3584

potential requirement. Table 3.3

- 24 presents the results for this protective category. 3585

3586

Table 3.3

- 24. Age Requirements, Present Value of Labor Costs 1

. 3587

Region NC P NC B NIC Annualized

NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Minimum Age of 1 6

, Early Entry Workers 10,734 9, 366 1,36 7 1 5 6

02 Minimum Age of 1 8

, Early Entry Workers 1 5,97 4 9, 618 6, 35 6 7 23

03 Minimum Age of 1 6

, Handlers 2 42,290 38

, 19 2 4 ,098 466

04 Minimum Age of 1 8

, Handlers 2 65,019 38

, 192 2 6,827 3 ,0 53

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3588

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 3589

2 Several states have minimum age restrictions on handlers for which we adjust the baseline. 3590

3591

AGE

- 01 and 02. Minimum age for agricultural workers entering fields during the REI. EPA is 3592

co nsidering setting a minimum age for agricultural workers (other than immediate family 3593

members) who may enter areas subject to a REI. Entry during a restricted

- entry interval may 3594

occur if there is an emergency that threatens the crop or for certain tasks t hat have limited or no 3595

contact with treated surfaces such as some irrigation activities. In this analysis, EPA has 3596

assumed that there will be one early entry event for every 50 pesticide applications and that, on 3597

average, half of the farm’s workers will b e engaged in associated tasks. As it is unlikely that a 3598

farm will solely employ adolescent workers, EPA expects that employers could replace any 3599

under

- age worker that might be involved in an early entry activity with a worker of minimum 3600

age older for thes e limited events. Thus, these potential requirements are likely to impose 3601

negligible costs on employers although there may be some unquantifiable management costs 3602

associated with shifting employees between tasks or across time. 3603

3604

As an upper bound, however , we assume that the employer would have to substitute a higher 3605

paid adult worker in place of the lower wage, adolescent worker. EPA has found no data 3606

regarding wage differentials by age categories, but it seems reasonable that factors such as age 3607

and exp erience would contribute to higher wages. The average wage rate of $9.40 per hour is 3608

used to represent the wage of adult laborers. EPA has assumed that 16 and 17 year old field 3609

workers would earn, on average, 60% of the average wage and 14 and 15 year ol d field workers 3610

would earn about 50% of the average wage. Thus, the unloaded wage rates are calculated as 3611

$5.64 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds and $4.70 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds. EPA notes 3612

that the latter is approximately the special minimum wa ge of $4.25 per hour for young workers 3613

during the first 90 days of employment with a given employer. 3614

3615

The additional labor cost of the 1 6 year

- old minimum age would be about $ 1 60 ,000 annually, or 3616

an expected cost of about $ 0.40 per WPS farm per year. A mi nimum age of 1 8 would impose 361799 costs of $ 7 2 0 ,000 annually, or about $ 1. 8 0 per WPS farm. As noted above, this cost is unlikely 3618

to be tangible, although the restriction could complicate a farm’s labor management. 3619

3620

AGE

- 03 and 04. Minimum age for pesticide handlers. EPA is considering setting a minimum 3621

age for employees (other than immediate family members) who handle pesticide, i.e. , those who 3622

mix, load and/or apply pesticides. There is currently no federal age restriction within the WPS 3623

although the Depa rtment of Labor restricts youths under 16 years of age from handling pesticides 3624

classified as Category I or II toxicity . EPA evaluated the impacts of both a 16

- year minimum 3625

(NOTIFY

- 0 3 ) and an 18

- year minimum (NOTIFY

- 0 4 ). 3626

3627

Table 3

- 3.25 presents the estimat ed labor costs of using different age categories for handling 3628

tasks, assuming, as for fieldworkers above, that 14 to 15

- year olds are paid half the hourly wage 3629

of adults and that 16 to 17 year olds are paid 60 percent of adult wages. The wage rate for adu lt 3630

handlers is from the BLS (2008). EPA calculates the wage for adolescent handlers on

- farm to be 3631

$7.29 per hour for 14 and 15 year olds and $8.75 per hour for 16 and 17 year olds. The former is 3632

approximately the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Benefits, valued at 30 percent of 3633

total compensation, are included in hourly wage rates. Among employees surveyed by the 3634

National Agricultural Workers Survey (DoL, 2005), who indicate having mixed or applied 3635

pesticides in the previous five years, 0.41 per cent were 14

- and 15

- year olds, 1.87 percent were 3636

16

- and 17

- year olds and the rest were 18 years and older. The survey further indicated that 3637

handlers under the age of 18 performed on average 50 hours per year of handler

- related 3638

activities. Given the wa ges, hours worked, and the proportion of adolescent handlers, we 3639

calculate an expected cost per WPS farms for these handler tasks of about $1 2.43 per year. 3640

3641

To calculate labor costs under the proposal (NOTIFY

- 03) , the time of 14 and 15 year old 3642

handlers is replaced by adult labor, resulting in an expected cost of about $1 4.35

. This would be 3643

an upper bound, of course, because the employer could still hire adolescents of 16 and 17 years 3644

of age. For a minimum age requirement of 18 (NOTIFY

- 04), all adolescent labor is replaced by 3645

adult labor, resulting in an expected cost of $2 1.35 per year. 3646

3647

The cost to CPHEs is estimated in a similar manner. However, there are no data estimating the 3648

number of CPHE employees that are under 18 years of age. It is likely that the proportion is 3649

smaller than in agricultural establishments, but the time spent in handling activities is likely 3650

higher. EPA assumes that only one percent of CPHE handlers are 16 or 17 years old and none 3651

are less than 16 years of age due to the commerc ial nature of the work. Further, we assume that 3652

these handlers work part time, spending, on average, 16 weeks on the job and working 40 hours 3653

per week. This is likely an over estimation for what may be summer employment. Labor costs 3654

assume that 16 and 1 7 year

- olds are paid about 60 percent of the average adult wage. 3655

3656100 Table 3

- 3.25 Labor costs for Handlers, by Age 3657

Age Category and

Establishment Wage/Hour Hours

Worked Proportion

of workers Total Labor

Cost

Baseline, WPS Farm

14

- 15 Year Old 10.4 1 50 0.004 1.92

16

- 17 Year Old 12.50 50 0.01 7 1 0.51

Total WPS farm 1 2.4 3

Baseline, CPHE

16

- 17 Year Old, CPHE 12.06 640 0.010 77.18

Minimum Age, 16, WPS

Farm

16

- 17 Year Old 12.50 50 0.01 7 10.51

Adult 20.83 50 0.0 04 3.84

Total WPS farm 1 4.35

Minimum Age, 18

Adult, WPS 20.83 50 0.02 1 2 1.35

Adult, CPHE 20.10 640 0.010 128.64

Source: BLS (2008), US Department of Labor (2007a), EPA calculations. 3658

3659

EPA estimates that there are 247,815 handlers nationally, assuming that each of the 54,289 large 3660

WPS farms employs two handlers and each of the 139,237 of the largest small operations employ 3661

one handler (see Section 3.3.2). Given the NAWS findings, this suggests around 1,000 handlers 3662

in the 14

- 15 year age group and about 4,600 in the 16

- 17 yea r age group. Table 3.3

- 26 presents 3663

EPA’s estimates of the number of handlers and the regional labor costs accounting for state 3664

requirements, RL B , and under a minimum age requirement of 18 years, RL P . Incremental labor 3665

costs for WPS farms are estimated to be about $ 2.2 million for the first year the rule is in effect 3666

and about $ 880 ,000 for CPHEs. 3667

3668

Table 3.3

- 26. Regional and National Level Labor Costs, AGE

- 0 4 WPS Handler, 18 Year 3669

Age Restriction, Year 1. 3670

Region N WPS hndlr B RL P RL B

($1,000)

South 36,924 1,116 655

California 15,365 464 273

Southwest 7,930 240 141

Subtropical 6,195 187 110

Midwest 53,776 1,625 954

Northeast 25,525 771 453

Ohio Valley 57,245 1,730 1,016

Texas/Mountain West 30,481 921 541

Northwest 14,373 434 255

U.S. 247,815 7,489 4,398

Source: EPA Estimations. 3671

3672101 Over ten years, at a three percent discount rate, the annual cost of setting a minimum age of 18 3673

for handlers is estimated at $ 3

. 1 million, which averages $ 11.20 per WPS farm and $ 317 per 3674

CPHE. Setting the minimum age at 16 results in additional annual labor costs of about 3675

$ 466 ,000. The latter option is substantially less costly because it would only affect the few 3676

handlers under 16 working on WPS farms, with an average annual incremental cost o f $ 2.40 per 3677

WPS establishment. 3678

3679

These requirements could result in higher labor costs for agricultural establishments and CPHEs. 3680

Labor, as a whole, could benefit from higher overall wages, but in that situation, there would be 3681

transfer of wages from adole scents, who would lose employment opportunities, to adults. 3682

3683



### 3.3.6 Entry 3684

3685

Entry restrictions are designed to protect workers from unnecessary exposure to pesticide 3686

residues. Like notification requirements, they would only apply to WPS farms when pesticide 3687

applications occur. Unlike the training and notification examples, which require farm operators, 3688

agricultural workers, or pesticide handlers to spend time providing or receiving information or to 3689

purchase materials, the entry restrictions rarely require specific activities or materials. These 3690

potential requirements preclude certain work activities from occurring at certain times in certain 3691

places. The primary cos t of changes in the regulations will be to increase the management 3692

burden of scheduling work activities and pesticide applications to minimize conflicts. This 3693

burden is largely unquantifiable and is likely to be influenced by the size of the operation and the 3694

diversity of production activities in which the operation engages. Estimates for the p otential 3695

requirements are presented in Table 3.3

- 27. 3696

3697102 Table 3.3

- 27. Entry Requirements, Present Value of Costs 1

. 3698

Region NC P NC B NIC Annualized NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 R estricted area of 25 to 100 ft

during application for all

agricultural establishments 0 0 0 0

02 Halt a pplication if non

handler enters treatment area 0 0 0 0

03 Limit entry during

emergencies to 4 hours 0 0 0 0

04 Limit entry during

emergencies to 8 hours 0 0 0 0

05 Eliminate early entry

exceptions 2,173,318 0 2,173,318 247,358

06 Monitoring handlers for

chlolinesterase inhibition 13 7,3 6 8 3,394 133,975 1 5,248

07 Limit time handling

cholinesterase

- inhibiting

products 38,533 1,470 37,063 4,218

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3699

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 3700

3701

ENTRY

- 01. Entry restricted area. During an application, entry into the area being treated is 3702

restricted to appropriately attired handlers. A p r o posed requirement defi nes the entry restricted 3703

area during an application on a WPS farm or forestry operation as extending 25 to 100 feet from 3704

the edge of the treated area , depending on the application method. This restriction already 3705

applies to WPS nurseries and greenhouses and would only apply to area under control of the 3706

employer

. For a WPS farm, imposing the restrict ed area c ould affect the scheduling of work 3707

activities in areas immediately adjacent to the area being treated, but only during the application. 3708

This may com plicate the scheduling of certain worker activities, but is unlikely to completely 3709

preclude activities or lead to quantifiable impacts on agricultural establishments. 3710

3711

ENTRY

- 02. Entry into a restricted area. Th e proposed requirement specifies that a hand ler 3712

working for a WPS farm or a forestry operation must cease application if he or she observes a 3713

person, other than a trained and equipped handler, in the treatment area . Since current 3714

requirements preclude entry into the treated area by non

- handlers, th e restriction simply clarifies 3715

the applicator’s responsibility and is unlikely to result in measureable costs. 3716

3717

ENTRY

- 03 and 04. Limit early entry under the Agricultural Emergency exception for double 3718

notification products. During agricultural emergencie s, agricultural employers can send workers 3719

into treated areas to conduct critical tasks even during the REI. One potential requirement 3720

(ENTRY

- 03) would limit the amount of time an individual worker could spend in an area treated 3721

with a product that requir es both oral warnings and warning signs (double notification products; 3722

see discussion on NOTIFY

- 01 and NOTIFY

- 02). Another option (ENTRY

- 04) would limit the 3723

time to eight hours. Neither restriction is expected to have measureable impacts. Throughout 3724

thi s analysis, EPA assumes that the probability that a WPS farm will have an early entry event is 3725103 about 40 percent, assuming an event is associated with one in 50 pesticide applications. Further, 3726

EPA assumes that two of 20 annual pesticide applications, or t en percent, involve double 3727

notification products, i.e. , those requiring both oral notification and physical posting. Thus, only 3728

a small percentage of farms would be expected to need to enter an area treated with such a 3729

product in any given year. Further, EPA assumes that not all workers would generally be 3730

involved in an early entry event. The farm operator would, therefore, be able to reassign workers 3731

if the time limit is reached. This will involve some management burden, but the effect is not 3732

quantifia ble. 3733

3734

The exception, of course, would be small operations with only one worker or two workers, both 3735

of whom are needed to address the emergency or one of whom has specialized skills that are 3736

needed. Even in these situations, however, the impact of the pot ential requirements is likely 3737

negligible as the tasks are expected to be of short duration. For example, a grower may need to 3738

reset irrigation equipment or place smudge pots to protect fruits or vegetables from a freeze, 3739

tasks that would not be of long du ration on a small operation. 3740

3741

ENTRY

- 05. Early entry exceptions. Exceptions to the REI are allowed by the WPS or by 3742

administrative action for ‘no contact,’ ‘limited’ contact, and irrigation activities, as well as for 3743

agricultural emergencies. As suggested by farmworker advocacy organizations, EPA considered 3744

eliminati ng all exceptions to the REI (ENTRY

- 05). The impact of this requirement would be to 3745

expose agricultural producers to greater risk of crop loss due to their inability to address 3746

unforeseen problems that may arise during the REI, for example, failure of irr igation equipment. 3747

This risk is difficult to quantify, but could be substantial. To characterize potential losses, EPA 3748

developed the following scenario: an establishment may face a problem, which might be 3749

addressed under current exceptions, on some prop ortion of its acreage, e.g. , 25 percent. The 3750

inability to address the problem might contribute to yield or revenue loss of some amount on 3751

those acres, e.g. , five percent. Such a problem might arise on a proportion of farms every year

, 3752

including family fa rms that currently are allowed to exercise the emergency exception to 3753

pesticide labels under the WPS . In this case, EPA calculat es that 9.8 percent of farms have early 3754

entry events that would lead to such losses, given the proportion of specialty crop far ms, 3755

nurseries, and greenhouses among all pesticide

- using farms and the assumption that there is an 3756

early entry event for one out of every 50 pesticide applications. 3757

3758

Growers most at risk would be those producing specialty crops such as fruits and vegetable s and 3759

those producing nursery and greenhouse crops because these crops are likely to be more sensitive 3760

to water and other stress than are field crops. Farms at risk would include all farms using 3761

pesticides since the exemption to the REI extends to family farms only through the WPS. 3762

According to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the total value of production (including 3763

government payments) was $ 50 .5 billion for vegetables, melons, fruits and tree nuts, and 3764

greenhouse and nursery (NASS, 2008b). Fro m the special tabulation requested from NASS, 3765

there are nearly 200 ,000 farms producing these crops as their primary activity (NASS, 2008b). 3766

Thus, the average revenue of these establishments is about $ 260 ,000 per year and a five percent 3767

loss would be aroun d $ 13,000 . Table 3.3

- 28 presents the calculation of per

- establishment loss 3768

using these figures. 3769

3770104 Table 3.3

- 28. Per

- Establishment Unit Costs for ENTRY

- 05. 3771

Action/Material value of

production affected

acreage likelihood cost

Five percent yield loss $1 3,024 25% 9.8% $320.00

Total $ 320.00

Source: EPA estimation. See text for derivation of numbers. 3772

3773

Note that a five percent yield loss may be a substantial underestimate, but that a 9.8 percent 3774

likelihood of occurrence could be a n overstatement. Under this scenario, the expected loss per 3775

establishment would be $ 320 per year, although if such an event were to occur, which would not 3776

happen every year, the loss to affected enterprise would be around $ 3,25 0, i.e. , the five percent 3777

los s occurring on 25 percent of the acreage. Extrapolating to the national level indicates losses 3778

of $ 247 million per year. 3779

3780

ENTRY

- 06 and 07. Cholinesterase inhibition. EPA considered two approaches that could 3781

address the issue of handler exposure to choli nesterase inhibiting pesticides. ENTRY

- 06 would 3782

establish a monitoring program while ENTRY

- 07 would simply impose a limit on the time 3783

handlers could work with these chemicals. 3784

3785

Washington State ’s Department of Labor and Industries facilitates a testing pr ogram to monitor 3786

pesticide handlers for cholinesterase inhibition for handlers who apply organophosphate and N

3787

methyl carbamate pesticides. Agricultural employers are required to allow their employees to 3788

participate in the program, which involves a blood test to establish a baseline and follow

- up tests 3789

for those working with such pesticides for more than 30 hours in a 30 day period. The employee 3790

can decline to participate. ENTRY

- 06 would make the program mandatory in all states. If the 3791

handler’s choline sterase levels drop, the handler would not be allowed to be exposed to such 3792

pesticides until levels return to normal. 3793

3794

Information from Washington (Furman, 2007) is used to establish both baseline and potential 3795

costs for a U.S. program. The calculation fo r a handler employed on a WPS farm in the 3796

Northwest is presented in Table 3.3

- 29. Washington reports that the voluntary program cost 3797

$115,595 for laboratory costs and to reimburse employers for administrative expenses. Given 3798

that 2,024 handlers participa ted in the program or voluntarily declined testing, EPA calculates a 3799

per

- handler cost of $55.14. Based on the description of how the program follows up with an 3800

examination of orchard practices, it appears that only WPS handlers, i.e. , those employed on 3801

fa rms not by CPHEs, are involved in the program. The 2,024 handlers in the program represent 3802

14.1 percent of the estimated number of handlers in the Northwest region. 3803

3804

The per

- handler cost from the Washington program does not including the value of the hand ler’s 3805

time that is spent getting tested. Each participating handler must go to a medical center and 3806

submit a baseline sample of blood or voluntarily decline to participate. EPA assumes this takes 3807

about one and a half hours, on average, including travel a nd wait time. Washington reports that 3808

386 handlers reached the level of pesticide use of 30 hours in 30 days that triggers follow

- up 3809

testing for cholinesterase inhibition (Furman, 2007); that is, 19.1 percent of handlers involved in 3810

the program obtain fol low

- up tests or 2.7 percent of WPS handlers in the region. The data also 3811

show that these handlers obtain, on average, 1.4 follow

- up tests, which implies that they spend 3812105 2.1 hours, including travel and wait time. As shown in Table 3.3

- 29, the expected cos t per WPS 3813

handler in the Northwest region is estimated to be $ 13.32

. 3814

3815

Table 3.3

- 29. Per

- WPS Handler Baseline Costs for ENTRY

- 07, Cholinesterase monitoring 3816

in NW. 3817

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Testing cost $ 55.14/handler 1 0. 141 $ 7.76

Baseline blood test $ 20.83/hr 1.5 0. 141 $ 4.40

Follow

- up blood test $ 20.83/hr 2. 07 0.0 27 $ 1.16

cost r,NW, a B $ 13.32

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3818

3819

California also has a monitoring program, but it is much more limited as it only tests handlers 3820

working with cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides for at least 30 hours in 30 days, which EPA 3821

estimates to be around ten percent of all handlers in the state; expected baseline costs are $9. 55 3822

for WPS handlers and $9. 40 for CPHE handlers. See Appendix A for details. The baseline cost 3823

in all other regions is zero. 3824

3825

To estimate national participation in a cholinesterase monitoring program, EPA extrapolates 3826

from the Washington program. We estimate, based on the number of large and large

- small 3827

farms, that there are 4, 415 WPS handlers in Washington state, which suggests that 4 5.8 percent 3828

of WPS handlers participate in the program, including those who decline to be tested, and 3829

accounting for the fact that WPS farms may not utilize pesticides each year. We further estimate 3830

that 51.0 percent of commercial handlers would participate given the rate at which WPS handlers 3831

are involved and the fact that C PHE handlers work with pesticides every year . We assume that 3832

the participation rate in Washington applies to all regions given that organophosphate and 3833

carbamate pesticides are used on a wide variety of crops. Thus, the expected per

- WPS handler 3834

cost of t he national program is calculated as in Table 3.3

- 30, but with the probability of testing 3835

cost and baseline blood test of 0.4 58 and of follow

- up blood tests of 0.08 7 , or 19.1 percent of the 3836

baseline participation. Expected cost per WPS handlers is $4 3.36 and is $4 7.51 for CPHE 3837

handlers. 3838

3839

The incremental cost of a monitoring program is estimated to be $1 5.2 million annually and 3840

would cost a WPS establishment employing handlers about $5 2.70 per year, on average, and 3841

would cost a CPHE an average of $ 123 per y ear. 3842

3843

In theory, a monitoring program would not be expected to affect the handlers’ ability to work. If 3844

inhibition were seen, a handler could still work with other classes of pesticides. Nor would a 3845

program necessarily affect the grower’s ability to have pesticides applied, since other handlers 3846

would likely be available. In practice, however, finding another application job or another 3847

handler at a particular moment could be problematic. In 2007, only about one percent of 3848

participating Washington handler s showed cholinesterase inhibition sufficient to warrant 3849

removal from work (Furman, 2007), so indirect impacts appear unlikely. 3850

3851106 An alternative approach would simply limit the amount of time handlers could work with 3852

cholinesterase inhibiting (ChI) products (ENTRY

- 07). The primary cost of this approach would 3853

be tracking the time handlers spend with such products. Data are not available for a precise 3854

estimation of the cost, but EPA characterizes the cost as follows. Each handler , including self

3855

employed ha ndlers, would need to record his/her time following an activity using a ChI product, 3856

a task that would take perhaps two minutes. The employer would then need to document the 3857

accumulated time as a running total over the past 30 days, a task that may take a bout three 3858

minutes per handler. ChI chemicals are found in some widely used products, but EPA assumes 3859

for WPS farms that they make up about 20 percent of applications, on average , and about 30 3860

percent of applications by CPHE handlers . Following the scena rio for ChI monitoring, we 3861

calculate that 4 5.8 percent of WPS handlers work with ChI pesticides. Similarly, 51.0 percent of 3862

CPHE handlers work with ChI products . Given these assumptions, which may underestimate 3863

the extent of use of ChI products, EPA es timates the cost of tracking handlers’ time to be about 3864

$ 4.2 million annually. The cost to a WPS farm is a relatively modest $5.40 per year, on average, 3865

but would be concentrated on farms making ChI pesticides. CPHEs could face costs of around 3866

$ 80 per ye ar because of the number of applications an individual handler makes. This does not 3867

include any management costs that arise from ensuring no individual handler exceeds the time 3868

limit nor any lost wages of a handler who is idled because he or she reaches t he limit and 3869

alternative jobs are not available. 3870

3871



### 3.3.7 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) 3872

3873

Protective gear is often required by the pesticide label when necessary to avoid unreasonable 3874

adverse effects that might result from pesticide exposure when an individual is handling 3875

pesticides or entering fields when exposure is still probable. The potential requirements in this 3876

category are intended to improve the use and efficacy of PPE. Costs to establishments are 3877

mostly in additional materials such as addi tional PPE, more frequent changes in filters, and fit 3878

testing. Additional time may be required for maintenance and record keeping. Some actions or 3879

material will be required of all WPS farms that hire handlers, because they are part of routine 3880

preparation s. Other requirements may only be applicable when a pesticide application is actually 3881

made. Table 3.3

- 30 presents the regional baseline and potential compliance for the category of 3882

PPE. 3883

3884107 Table 3.3

- 30. PPE, Present Value of Costs 1

. 3885

Potential Requirement NC P NC B NIC Annualized

NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Respirator fit test 301,043 207,562 93,481 10,640

02 Eliminate early entry

exceptions for CCA

employees, WPS 52,052 52,047 5 0. 5

03 Eliminate early entry

exceptions for CCA

employees, CCA 13,338 13,325 13 1

04 Revise closed

- system

standards 1 5 3,863 93,133 6 0,730 6,912

0 5 Contaminated PPE

rendered unwearable 0 0 0 0

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3886

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 3887

3888

PPE

- 01. Respirator fit test and medical evaluation. Currently, employers are required to insure 3889

that respirators fit properly but there are no specific procedures for doing so. Thus, in the 3890

baseline, procedures are probably minimal, consisting of some individu al adjustments at the time 3891

of an application. The exception is California, which already requires an OSHA

- like program of 3892

fit testing. Further, some handlers will undergo fit testing because the requirement has been 3893

incorporated onto some product labels, for example, various soil fumigants. CPHE handlers are 3894

fit tested under OSHA requirements, including self

- employed handlers. 3895

3896

The proposed requirement would bring users of respirators for handling pesticides on

- farm under 3897

provisions similar to OSHA requi rements, including that those using respirators are medically 3898

cleared for their use. The costs of this requirement would include the time required for handlers 3899

to have a fit test with his or her respirator and complete a medical screening. The actions an d 3900

materials required are shown in Table 3.3

- 31. The medical screening consists of a health survey 3901

that takes about 30 minutes to complete. The survey is evaluated by a registered nurse or a 3902

licensed health care provider whose time is valued at $42.91 per hour (BLS, 2008). The Agency 3903

assumes that, on average, one handler from large and large

- small crop farms and one handler 3904

from large livestock farms growing crops will routinely obtain the fit test each year, implying 3905

about 60 percent of all handlers. Th is is probably an overestimate, but a number of widely used 3906

pesticides have respirator requirements and growers may be unwilling to wait until a treatment is 3907

necessary to obtain the fit test for an employee. Data from OSHA (2004) indicate that about 23 3908

pe rcent of those taking the medical screen will need a follow

- up examination, which implies 3909

about 1 3.7 percent of all handlers. The examination is expected to take about two hours, 3910

including travel and wait time. The cost of the examination is $101, based on the average cost of 3911

an office visit to a general practitioner (Machlin and Carper, 2007). Once cleared, the handler 3912

takes the fit test, which EPA anticipates to take about 90 minutes, including some travel time. 3913

The material for the fit test costs abo ut a dollar (OSHA, 2004). As currently required, if the 3914

respirator is used, the employer must provide instructions on proper use. Actual respirator use is 3915108 likely to be relatively rare among WPS, however. The expected cost

- per WPS handler of the 3916

requirem ent is calculated to be $ 48.72 , as shown in Table 3.3

- 31. 3917

3918

Table 3.3

- 31. Per

- WPS Handler Costs for PPE

- 01, Respirator fit test. 3919

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Initial survey $20.83/hr 0.5 hour 0. 595 $ 6.19

Medical evaluation $42.91/hr 5 min 0. 595 $ 2. 13

Time for follow

- up exam $20.83/hr 2 hour 0.1 37 $ 5.70

Follow

- up medical exam $101.00 1 0.1 37 $ 1 3.82

Time for fit test, with travel $20.83/hr 1.5 hour 0. 595 $ 18.58

Fit test material $1.00 1 0. 595 $ 0. 59

Employer instructs on

proper use $28.21/hr 6 min 0.3 51 $ 0.9 9

Handler receives

instructions on use $20.83/hr 6 min 0.3 51 $ 0.7 3

cost r,i, a P $ 48.7 4

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3920

3921

The c ost per

- CHPE handler is calculated to be $ 82.29 , which is higher than for WPS farms due 3922

to the fact that EPA assumes all CHPE handlers receive the fit test. Since OSHA requirements 3923

already apply to commercial enterprises, this c ost is incurred in the baseline as well as under the 3924

proposed requirement, resulting in no additional cost. However , the employer of the CPHE 3925

handler may incur new costs of around $2.20 per year to collect and store documentation of the 3926

fit test and evalu ation. The record keeping costs for WPS farms is estimated to be around $1.60 3927

per year. 3928

3929

EPA estimates that the incremental cost of this potential requirement would be about $ 10.6 3930

million annually, with an average annual cost of $ 54.40 for WPS establishments that hire 3931

handlers and $2.50 for CPHEs. The CPHE cost is simply the additional record keeping cost. 3932

3933

PPE

- 02 and 03. Exceptions for Certified Crop Advisors (CCAs). CCAs assist growers to plan 3934

production activities such as irrigati on or pest control activities. They may, for example, test for 3935

soil moisture or scout for pests and evaluate whether pest pressure reaches economically 3936

damaging level s . Under current exceptions, use of PPE by employees acting under the direction 3937

of CCAs is at the discretion of the CCA. The proposed requirements would remove the 3938

exception for those working under CCAs employed by a farm (PPE

- 02) and/or under CCAs 3939

employed by a firm that contracts advisory services (PPE

- 03). The requirement would only 3940

appl y to employees who are not certified. Without the exceptions, WPS farms or CCA firms 3941

would have to provide PPE and decontamination supplies, but such supplies would already be 3942

available under different provisions. Thus, the impacts of eliminating the exc eption will be 3943

negligible, consisting , at most, of the time it takes an employee to put on PPE (e.g., gloves, 3944

coveralls) on rare occasions

. 3945

3946109 PPE

- 04. Revise standards for closed systems that substitute for PPE. Current requirements 3947

allow mixers and loader s of pesticides to forego specified PPE if they use a closed system in 3948

which a pesticide can be mixed and loaded into an application system without its release. EPA is 3949

considering revising the standards that define a closed system under which such a subst itution is 3950

permitted. The impacts of changing the standard will vary across WPS farms, family farms, and 3951

CHPEs. Some entities may not use closed systems now. Others may have a system that is 3952

already in compliance with the proposed standards. Of those t hat are not in compliance, some 3953

establishments may purchase a new, compliant system while others will opt for use of PPE. In 3954

addition, all entities will be required to keep records of all system maintenance, something that is 3955

not currently required under federal regulations, b ut is required by California

. 3956

3957

Given the variability in possible impacts, estimation of the cost of the potential requirement is 3958

difficult. In the baseline, EPA assumes that 25 percent of large and large

- small WPS farms and 3959

50 percen t of large family farms do not currently use a closed system. Instead, they utilize PPE 3960

and, we assume, replace about five pairs of personal filters each year. The other large and large

3961

small WPS and large family farms employ a closed system and only rep lace one pair of personal 3962

filters each year. This probably overestimates the number of family farms using a closed system 3963

as family farms may be less likely to self

- apply pesticides requiring a respirator. EPA also 3964

assumes that about 20 percent of system s will require maintenance each year, entailing costs of 3965

$86.50, based on the cost of a repair kit (Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008). The probability of an 3966

action is then modified by the proportion of large and large

- small WPS farms that use pesticides, 3967

which is 95% according to information in a special tabulation of data from the U.S. Census of 3968

Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). Table 3.3

- 32 presents the baseline calculations , showing EPA’s 3969

estimate of $43.96 per year, on average, for large and large

- small WPS farms

. The baseline cost 3970

for a family farm is estimated to average $43.93 each year. 3971

3972

Table 3.3

- 32. Per

- WPS Farm Baseline Costs for PPE

- 04, Revise standards for closed 3973

systems. 3974

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.2 2 $ 2 0.19

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0. 67 $ 12. 11

Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.1 3 $ 1 1.66

cost r,i, a B $ 4 3.96

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 3975

3976

The per

- establishment cost for CPHEs is calculated in a similar manner, but we assume that 3977

CPHEs with multiple handlers have, on average, two closed systems while small one and two 3978

person CPHEs have one. Thus the current expected cost pe r CPHE is estimated to be $70.54 and 3979

$35.27, respectively. Note that California systems are all in compliance with the potential 3980

definition of a closed system. However, state requirements do not include recordkeeping. 3981

3982

Table 3.3

- 33 presents the expected cost for large and large

- small WPS farms to comply with the 3983

proposed standard. In addition to the 25 percent of farms not using a closed system, EPA 3984

assumes another 25 percent of large and large

- small WPS farms already have a system that 3985110 would meet the po tential requirement. As shown in the second and third lines of Table 3.3

- 33, 3986

these farms will simply continue to replace the PPE respirator filters annually and conduct 3987

maintenance as needed. We assume another 25 percent will purchase a new closed system

, 3988

likely to cost about $480 (Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008). Once in compliance, their filter and 3989

maintenance costs will be the same as those with existing compliant systems. Finally, 25 percent 3990

of establishments will not replace their existing system, but opt to use PPE like those without a 3991

closed system. Note that, with the exception of the purchase of a new closed system, all 3992

probabilities are weighted by the proportion of large and large

- small WPS farms that use 3993

pesticides in a given year. 3994

3995

Table 3.3

- 3 3. Per

- WPS and Family Farm Potential Costs for PPE

- 04, Revise standards for 3996

closed systems, Year 1. 3997

Action/Material (j) wage/price

w j unit

time/quantity

H r,i,j /M r,i,j annual

frequency

Prob( j | i ) cost

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.2 2 $ 2 0.19

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.2 2 $ 4. 04

Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.05 $ 3.89

New Closed System $480.00 1 0.25 $ 121.23

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 1 0.2 2 $ 4. 04

Maintenance kit $86.50 1 0.05 $ 3.89

Respirator filters $17.97/pair 5 0.2 2 $ 2 0.19

File Maintenance Record $ 28.21 3 min 0.09 $ 0.0 4

Record and Folder $ 0.29 1 0.09 $ 0.03

cost PPE, a P $ 1 77.52

Source: EPA estimation. Prices (Gempler’s, 2008; Cherlor Mfg. Co Inc., 2008; Staples, 2008); EPA 3998

assumptions. 3999

4000

Keeping records of maintenance will require some management time as well as materials. EPA 4001

assumes that slightly less than ten percent of all large and large

- small WPS farms (20% of those 4002

with closed systems) will have a maintenance event to report. All establishments with closed 4003

systems must keep records, but only those making applications would have something to place in 4004

the file. As shown in Table 3.3

- 33, EPA estimates expected compliance cost to be $1 7 8 in the 4005

first year for large and large

- small WPS farms. In subsequ ent years, these farms will not need to 4006

purchase new systems and the annual cost will fall to $5 6.29 , on average across all the affected 4007

WPS farms. 4008

4009

A similar approach was used to estimate an expected cost per large family farm of $107.11 and 4010

per CPHE of $ 2 21 to $ 44 2 in the first year for one or two person operations and for multiple 4011

handler enterprises, respectively. The difference s in cost ar is e because of different assum ptions 4012

about the use of clos ed systems on these establishments. For example, we ass ume that all 4013

CPHEs have closed systems and that multiple handler CPHEs have, on average, two closed 4014

systems. Half of large family farms are assumed to have closed systems. In all cases, o ne third 4015

are assumed to have systems already in compliance, one

- thi rd would obtain a new system, and 4016

one

- third would rely on PPE. 4017

4018111 EPA estimates the national incremental cost of this potential requirement to be about $3 2.5 4019

million for the first year, assuming that all new closed systems are purchased immediately. Over 4020

te n years, using a three percent discount rate, the incremental cost is estimated at $ 60.7 million. 4021

Annualized incremental cost is estimated at $ 6.9 million with WPS farms bearing costs of about 4022

$4.8 million annually, family farms incurring costs of $110,00 0, and CHPEs incurring $2.0 4023

million. This implies an average yearly cost to WPS farms of $ 24.90, to family farms of $12.00, 4024

and to CPHEs of $ 48.00 . Note that the average impact per establishment includes those 4025

establishments unaffected by the change in s tandards. 4026

4027

PPE

- 05. Disposal of contaminated PPE. The WPS requires proper disposal of contaminated 4028

PPE. The proposed revision would specify that contaminated PPE be rendered unwearable. The 4029

change is anticipated to have a negligible cost impact. 4030

4031



### 3.3.8 Decontamination Supplies 4032

4033

The provision of decontamination supplies is a critical element in mitigating the effects of 4034

exposure to pesticides. EPA is considering a number of potential requirements that better define 4035

expected standards for employers to fol low and increase the ability of employers and employees 4036

to mitigate exposures if they occur. Some of these requirements are definitional, but EPA 4037

characterizes some potential cost impacts. A summary of the results of the cost analysis of these 4038

potential requirements is presented in Table 3.3

- 34. 4039

4040

Table 3.3

- 34. Supply Requirements, Present Value of Costs 1

. 4041

Potential Requirement NC P NC B NIC Annualized

NIC

($1,000) ($1,000)

01 Water requirements, workers 1,781 1,781 0 0

02 Decontamination

requirements, early entry

events

– workers 33 11 22 3

03 Decontamination requirements

- handlers 434 434 0 0

04 Showers for handler

decontamination 22,682,537 0 22,682,537 2,581,636

05 Emergency eyeflush

- handlers 2,547 2,547 0 0

06 Eyewash station 121,999 2,547 119,452 13,596

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 4042

1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years. 4043

4044

SUPPLY

- 01. Quantity of water available for workers. A current WPS provision requires that 4045

“enough” water be available for decontamination when agricultural field workers are performing 4046

tasks in treated areas after the REI has expired. EPA, in the 1992 “How to Comply” manual, 4047

supplemented the rule with policy that stated that one gallon per wor ker would be considered 4048

sufficient. This potential revision would make it explicit, in the regulations, that one gallon of 4049

water be available for each worker for routine decontamination. Given the policy manual, it is 4050

likely that all WPS farms are in com pliance with the potential requirement such that the 4051112 incremental cost will be zero. Water would likely be supplied from existing wells or delivery 4052

systems; some sort of containers would be necessary to have water available in the field. 4053

4054

SUPPLY

- 02. Quant ity of water available for early entry events. Similarly, for tasks in treated 4055

areas during an REI , the WPS requires “sufficient” water be available for decontamination and 4056

the “How to Comply” manual stated that one gallon per worker would be considered sufficient. 4057

The proposed requirement would increase the amount of water needed to three gallons. 4058

Throughout this assessment, EPA has characterized the probability that an early event occurs to 4059

be 40 percent and assumed that about half the workers employe d on the farm would engage in 4060

the activity. Based on the cost of water per acre foot in Kentucky, the most expensive in the U.S. 4061

(NASS, 2010), a gallon would cost about $0.003. Given these assumptions, the incremental cost 4062

of increasing water availabilit y is estimated to be $2, 500 annually. This amounts to less than 4063

$0.01 per WPS farm per year. 4064

4065

SUPPLY

- 03. Quantity of water available for handler decontamination. Current ly, the WPS 4066

require s that “enough” water be available for handler s to use for routine and emergency washing, 4067

including emergency eye

- flush. EPA, in the 1992 “How to Comply” manual, supplemented the 4068

rule with policy that stated that three gallons per handler would be considered sufficient. This 4069

potential revision would co dify the existing definition of ‘ enough ’ water for decontamination. 4070

The impact of this requirement would be negligible given the existing requirement and policy 4071

manual. As noted in SUPPLY

- 01, water availability would not generally be a problem. 4072

4073

Supply

- 0 4. Provide showers for handler decontamination. This option would require all 4074

establishments with handlers to install showers for decontamination purposes. The impact of this 4075

requirement would be substantial. Based on an estimate from an architectural engineer, material 4076

and construction costs to install a shower with plumbing and utilities would cost about $105,000 4077

(Gaylord Entertainment Company, 2007). Nationally, this would cost about $ 22.7 billion dollars 4078

for construction. Annualized over 10 years, the cost is $ 2.6 billion per year and almost $1 2,000 4079

per WPS farm. This estimate does not include future costs of maintenance. In practice, most 4080

WPS farm owners/operators would likely cease employing their own handlers and make all 4081

applications themselv es or turn to CPHEs. The cost for current CPHEs to install showers could 4082

be as much as $ 2.5 billion, but additional CPHEs would likely be necessary to meet the demand 4083

for pesticide applications. In the short term, EPA estimates that there are over 150,00 0 handlers 4084

employed on WPS establishments who could lose their jobs. Some would likely transfer to more 4085

general employment categories, possibly at some loss of wages. Others would likely find 4086

employment with CPHEs, for which demand would increase. Thus, the final number of jobs lost 4087

as a result of this potential requirement is uncertain. 4088

4089

There may be less expensive options, depending on the goal of the requirement. For use in an 4090

emergency, a decontamination shower may only cost about $630, not includin g installation 4091

(Grainger, 2013). Such equipment is usually for indoor use and it is unclear whether it would be 4092

appropriate for mixing/loading sites on

- farm. If the goal is to provide handlers, and potentially 4093

workers, with an opportunity to clean off an y residues before returning home, an outdoor shower 4094

with privacy panels may suffice for small farms and cost around $7,500 (Oborain, 2013). Some 4095

farms would perhaps need to provide two for men and women, and large farms may need the 4096

more substantial facil ities described above, but annualized costs might be less than $1 billion. 4097113 4098

SUPPLY

- 05 and 06. Quantity of water available for handler eye flushing. Current requirements 4099

specify that handlers should have at least one pint of water available when working w ith 4100

pesticides requiring protective eyewear. Potential requirements would require there to be a 4101

sustained flow of water. SUPPLY

- 05 would require that there be sufficient running water at all 4102

permanent mixing and loading sites to provide 1.5 liters per mi nute. There would be little or no 4103

impact to this requirement as permanent sites are likely to have running water for other purposes 4104

such as diluting concentrated pesticides. 4105

4106

An alternative (SUPPLY

- 06) would require a separate eyewash station. The averag e cost of a 4107

portable eyewash station is $279.90 (Tuthill, 2008; Gempler’s, 2008). Given the number of 4108

CPHEs and those WPS establishments that likely have mixing and loading sites, EPA estimates 4109

the initial costs to provide these stations to be about $ 66.7 million. Assuming that annual 4110

maintenance amounts to ten percent of the initial purchase price, the annualized cost of this 4111

potential requirement is about $ 13.6 million per year, using a three percent discount rate. 4112

4113



### 3.3.9 Emergency Response 4114

4115

The time be tween an accident and the provision of appropriate health care is a critical element in 4116

mitigating the effects of exposure to a pesticide. Current requirements require “prompt” action 4117

in terms of transportation to a health provider and the provision of in formation about the specific 4118

pesticide to which the individual was exposed. Terms such as “prompt” lack specificity, 4119

however; they do not provide employers with clear standards of action. Therefore, EPA is 4120

considering potential requirements that would mo re precisely define standards for emergency 4121

response. None of these potential requirements are anticipated to have measurable impacts, as 4122

explained below. 4123

4124

EMERG

- 01 and 02. Response for worker exposure. Potential requirements would define 4125

expected emerg ency response time in case of an agricultural worker as either 60 minutes 4126

(EMERG

- 01) or 30 minutes (EMERG

- 02). Estimation of a precise cost of this requirement is 4127

not possible as field conditions are highly variable. However, as this merely clarifies exi sting 4128

requirements, the impacts are not expected to be large. The ubiquitous nature of cell phones 4129

suggests that a rapid response is likely the norm even without a clarifying requirement. The 4130

most difficult aspect of the requirement for field workers wil l be identifying the pesticide to 4131

which an individual is exposed. In an early entry situation, the problem may be assumed to be 4132

the most recent application. However, in other situations, the problem may not be clear, 4133

especially if workers are exposed to pesticide drift from an application performed on a different 4134

farm. 4135

4136

EMERG

- 03 and 04. Response for handler exposure. Similarly, potential requirements would 4137

define expected emergency response time in case of handler exposure as either 60 minutes 4138

(EMERG

- 03) or 30 minutes (EMERG

- 04). Neither potential time frame is likely to result in 4139

measurable impacts. In particular, identification of the pesticide to which the individual is 4140

exposed will likely be obvious in the case of handlers. 4141

4142

4143114 This concludes the a nalysis of the cost of each requirement option. The following chapters 4144

discuss the proposed requirements, which are a subset of the options discussed in this section. 4145

Chapter 4 describes the cost

- benefit analysis used by the Agency in selecting the requi rements 4146

for proposal. Chapter 5 presents the costs of the proposal, including the impacts of the proposal 4147

on employment and small businesses. Chapter 6 discusses the ultimate benefits of the proposed 4148

revisions in terms of improved human health that resul ts from less pesticide exposure, both from 4149

reduced pesticide incidents and from lower day

- to

- day exposure. 4150

4151

4152115 

## Chapter 4. Costs and Benefits of Potential Requirements 4153

4154

EPA is proposing revisions to the WPS that will provide benefits to workers and pesticide 4155

handlers of agricultural establishments (WPS farms) and commercial pesticide handler 4156

establishments (CPHE) without imposing excessive costs to employers. Out of the potential 4157

requirements EPA considered and discussed in previous chapters, Table 4

- 1 summarizes the 4158

requirements the Agency is proposing. 4159

4160

Table 4

- 1. Proposed Requirements. 4161

Identifier Title

INFORM: Training, Hazard Communication, and Notification

TRAIN

- 02 Immediate Training of Workers, with 2

- Day Exception

TRAIN

- 03 Annual Training of Workers

TRAIN

- 06 Expand Worker Training

TRAIN

- 08 Increase Worker Trainer Qualification Standards

TRAIN

- 10 Keep Worker Training Records

– 2 years

TRAIN

- 12 Annual Handler Training

TRAIN

- 14 Expand Handler Training

TRAIN

- 16 Keep Handler Training Records

– 2 years

TRAIN

- 20 Require Employees Receive Verification of Training

HAZCOM

- 01 Application Information Available on Request

HAZCOM

- 02 Availability of Pesticide Label and SDS

HAZCOM

- 05 Keep Application Information

– 2 years

NOTIFY

- 01 Post Warn ing Signs if REI Greater than 48 Hours for Outdoor Production

NOTIFY

- 03 Oral Notification if REI Less than 4 Hours (Greenhouse)

NOTIFY

- 06 Revise Warning Signs

NOTIFY

- 08 Define ‘Adjacent’ Worker Housing as within 100 Feet

NOTIFY

- 10 Oral Information for Entry into Restricted Areas

NOTIFY

- 12 Keep Records of Early Entry

– 2 years

NOTIFY

- 14 Revise Basic Pesticide Safety Display

NOTIFY

- 15 Add Safety Display to Worker Decontamination Sites

NOTIFY

- 16 Add Safety Display to Handler Decontamination Sites

NOTIFY

- 18 Notification of Application by Commercial Applicators

PROTECT: Age, Entry, and PPE

AGE

- 01 Minimum Age of 1 6 for Early Entry

AGE

- 03 Minimum Age of 1 6 for Handlers

ENTRY

- 01 Expand Restricted Area

ENTRY

- 02 Halt Application in case of Entry into Restricted Area

ENTRY

- 03 Limit Early Entry Time during Agricultural Emergencies to 4 Hours

PPE

- 01 Require Respirator Fit Test

PPE

- 02 Eliminate Exemption from PPE for WPS Employees working under a CCA

PPE

- 03 Eliminate Exemption from PPE for Employe es working under CCAs

PPE

- 04 Revise Closed

- System Standards

PPE

- 0 5 Render Contaminated PPE Un us able116 Identifier Title

MITIGATE: Decontamination Supplies and Emergency Response

SUPPLY

- 01 Routine Worker Decontamination Requirements

SUPPLY

- 02 Decontamination Requirements for Early Entry Events

SUPPLY

- 03 Decontamination Requirements for Handlers

SUPPLY

- 05 Water Flow Requirements for Handler Eye Flushing

EMERG

- 01 Define “Prompt” as 30 Minutes during Worker Emergency

EMERG

- 03 Define “Prompt” as 30 Minutes during Handler Emergency

4162

This chapter provides a comparison of the costs and benefits of the options EPA considered in 4163

developing the proposed revisions to the WPS. Chapter 2 qualitatively described the benefits of 4164

different requirement options in terms of providing better information, greater protection, and/or 4165

more rapid mitigation while Chapter 3 estimated the monetary cost of each requirement. The 4166

emphasis of a cost

- benefit analysis is on efficiency, in this case, the dual goals of providing the 4167

agricultural work ers and handlers with the highest level of protection practicable while 4168

minimizing economic impacts to agriculture, and small businesses in particular. 4169

4170

In weighing the relative advantages and disadvantages of the options, however, EPA considered 4171

the full range of information brought by various stakeholder groups involved in th e regulatory 4172

development process ( e.g. , farmworkers and farmworker advocate organizations, growers and 4173

grower groups, state regulatory agencies, pesticide safety trainers, researchers , and other federal 4174

agencies such as USDA and DoL/OSHA). Not all of these factors are discussed in detail in this 4175

document as they lie outside the scope of a cost

- benefit analysis. Other relevant factors include, 4176

for example, equity considerations ( e.g.

, potential distribution of costs) and concerns over the 4177

feasibility of implementing a requirement given state regulatory experiences. A discussion of all 4178

these factors can be found in the NPRM for this proposed rule. 4179

4180



### 4.1 Training Options 4181

4182

The WPS currently r equires employers to provide pesticide safety training for workers and 4183

handlers. Training is a lynchpin of fundamental importance for worker and handler protections. 4184

Insuring that workers and handlers have the information necessary so that they can take 4185

appropriate steps to protect themselves from pesticide exposure is more efficient than attempting 4186

to specify actions that must be taken or cannot be taken for every situation that may arise. 4187

4188



### 4.1. 1 TRAIN

- 01 vs TRAIN

- 02 : Immediate worker training 4189

4190

EPA is p roposing to require that all workers receive complete pesticide safety training prior to 4191

their entry into a pesticide

- treated area with limited exceptions that allow for a two

- day grace 4192

period (TRAIN

- 02) . Requiring employers to provide the complete traini ng to workers before 4193

they ente r a treated area would e nsure that workers understand how to protect themselves when 4194

working in pesticide

- treated fields. This is an especially critical issue for many temporary 4195

workers who may not receive complete pesticide safety training because they work fewer than 4196

five days on a single farm. EPA estimates that up to 35,500 workers may fall into this category. 4197

These temporary workers may work on multiple farms, especially for harvest, and never receive 4198117 complete training. Ensuring workers are properly trained means a substa ntial improvement in 4199

pesticide safety. EPA estimates that this proposal will e nsure that about 13 ,000 more workers 4200

will receive full training before they enter previously treated areas . These changes should 4201

decrease the number of occupational pesticide

- r elated illnesses because workers would be better 4202

informed on how to protect themselves before entering a pesticide

- treated area. 4203

4204

EPA estimates that TRAIN

- 02 will cost about $ 5.80 per year per WPS farm, primarily due to an 4205

increase in the number of trainin gs conducted to account for workers who are hired at different 4206

times. The alternative, TRAIN

- 01 (no grace period) , is estimated to cost $7. 10 per year per 4207

WPS farm. In selecting the lower cost option, EPA also considers the fact the workers 4208

themselves m ay bear some of this cost since many workers hired at harvest are paid by the 4209

amount they pick rather than by the hour. 4210

4211



### 4.1. 2 TRAIN

- 03 vs 04 and 05 / TRAIN

- 12 vs 13 : Frequency of worker and 4212



### handler training 4213

4214

EPA is proposing to require that worker (TRAIN

- 03) and handler (TRAIN

- 12) pesticide safety 4215

training be valid for one year from the date of training, instead of five years. This means that 4216

employees would be retrained on an annual basis. To be effective, training must be repeated at 4217

appropriate inter vals. Pesticide safety educators have noted that “repeating basic safety 4218

messages increases adoption of improved safety practices (Spradley, 2007) .” Thus, retention of 4219

pesticide safety information will be greater with annual training than with biennial training

. 4220

Calabro et al . (2000) showed that two years after training, medical students performed no better 4221

than untrained students in following protocols to preve nt infect ion s in themselves and their 4222

patients. Thus, while both alternatives would be an im provement over the current five year 4223

cycle , annual training is likely to provide substantially greater benefits than biennial training

. 4224

4225

Increasing the frequency of worker training from every five years to every year would cost WPS 4226

farms an additional $2 2. 20 per year while the cost for biennial training is estimated to be about 4227

$ 8.10 per year. For handlers, the costs for annual training are estimated to be about $17. 00 per 4228

year per WPS farm and $66. 70 per year for CPHEs. Costs for biennial handler trainin g is 4229

estimated to be $8.10 and $27.40 per year for WPS farms and CPHEs, respectively

. 4230

4231

While the difference in costs between the annual and biennial are not inconsequential, EPA 4232

balanced the higher cost of annual training with the importance of more freque nt training. As 4233

noted above, a nnual training will lead to better retention of the self

- protective information by 4234

workers and handlers than biennial training, ultimately resulting in fewer incidents of pesticide 4235

exposure and illness in workers and handlers . Moreover, training reinforces many of the other 4236

WPS provisions by, for example, explaining the importance of following warnings about REIs

. 4237

4238

The Agency also considered an alternative based on a comment from the SBAR panel . This 4239

option (TRAIN

- 05) would require annual retraining but offer small WPS farms with fewer than 4240

10 employees the option to provide training less frequently if certain conditions are met (see 4241

Chapter 2.2.1)

. EPA estimates that this option could lower incremental costs for small farms 4242

(those making less than $750,000 in annual sales) from $15. 40 per year under TRAIN

- 03 to 4243118 $1 2.40 per year. However, this alternative would mean about 82,000 workers would not receive 4244

training, possibly for several years. 4245

4246



### 4.1. 3 TRAIN

- 06 vs 07 / TRAIN

- 14 vs 15 : Expand the content of worker and 4247



### handler training 4248

4249

Expansion of pesticide safety training content is a key component of the overall WPS rule 4250

amendments and affects multiple areas of the proposed changes. A major goal of this expansion 4251

is to support changes in the hazard communication component in the revised WPS. The new 4252

training reinforces EPA’s strategy of providing simple, clear and consistent information on basic 4253

pesticide safety to enable workers and handlers to protect themselves fr om pesticide exposure 4254

risks while putting less emphasis on pesticide

- specific information that could lead to 4255

complacency in some cases and excess concern in others

. 4256

4257

EPA is proposing to expand the required worker pesticide safety training to include additi onal 4258

topics on how to reduce take

- home pesticide exposure, information for workers (TRAIN

- 06) and 4259

handlers (TRAIN

- 14) on the protections employers must provide under the WPS, and proposed 4260

requirements for early entry notification, emergency assistance, and availability of hazard 4261

communication materials , especially the SDS

. 4262

4263

The additional information is anticipated to extend worker and handler training by about 15 4264

minutes . The longer training sessions would cost an additional $1 1.00 per WPS farm per year 4265

f or worker training and an estimated $3 .20 per WPS farm and $14 .70 per CPHE per year for 4266

handler training

. 4267

4268

EPA also considered alternatives that would have supported the use of crop sheets instead of 4269

SDS as the primary means of hazard communication. These alternatives (TRAIN

- 07 and 15) 4270

would be slightly more expensive since explaining the details of crop sheets would be more 4271

complex than explaining the SDS. The cost of developing crop sheets is not included in this 4272

estimate, nor is the cost of printing an d distributing copies; the latter two are captured in 4273

HAZCOM

- 07 and HAZCOM

- 04, respectively. 4274

4275

Generally speaking, t he benefits of crop and chemical

- specific information do not appear to 4276

justify the cost s of development, distribution, and training. Crop sh eets may confuse workers 4277

with complex pesticide information, possibly before any product is used. Providing such 4278

information could be counterproductive to providing workers with simple, consistent pesticide 4279

safety messages. 4280

4281



### 4.1. 4 TRAIN

- 08 vs 09 : Increas e worker trainer competency standards 4282

4283

EPA is proposing to eliminate training of workers by certified applicators and WPS

- trained 4284

handlers (TRAIN

- 0 8 ), leaving training to those qualified to train certified applicators or those 4285

who have completed a “Train

- t he

- Trainers” program. An alternative evaluated here is to limit 4286

training only to those who have completed a Train

- the

- Trainers program (TRAIN

- 09). As 4287

discussed in Chapter 2, the experience and training skills of certified applicators and handlers 4288119 may not align as well with the training needs of field workers as compared to those trained to 4289

train. T he unique characteristics and demographics of the farmworker population, especially 4290

language and literacy issues, implies that there are substantial benefits t o having trainers that 4291

have been specially trained to work with this audience and diverse population. These trainers, 4292

i.e. , those completing the Train

- the

- Trainers program, have the ability to convey pesticide safety 4293

information

, th e knowledge of adult ed ucation principles

, and the communication skills needed 4294

to reach low

- literacy audiences . Using qualified trainers will increase the overall understanding 4295

and retention of pesticide safety training by workers. This improvement would increase the 4296

likelihoo d that workers and handlers adopt the principles outlined in the pesticide safety training 4297

and reduce the potential for exposure to themselves and their family members. Trainers of 4298

certified applicators will have the technical knowledge, but may not have the skills to convey the 4299

information to a farmworker audience. The cost of bo th provision s is estimate d to be about 4300

$2. 80 per WPS farm. However, limiting worker safety trainers to only those who have 4301

completed a Train

- the

- Trainer program could lead to sh ortages of trainers, even though the 4302

provision will be delayed for two years. 4303

4304



### 4.1. 5 TRAIN

- 10 vs 11 / TRAIN

- 1 6 vs 17 : Record keeping 4305

4306

EPA is proposing that WPS farms and CPHEs keep records of worker (TRAIN

- 10) and handler 4307

(TRAIN

- 16) employee training for two years. As explained in Chapter 2, t h ese proposal s may 4308

benefit both the farm and enforcement agencies by establishing a clear method for verifying that 4309

applicable requirements have been met. Keeping records for two years is expected to cost WPS 4310

farms about $ 4.10 per year for worker training and less than $ 1.00 for handler training . For 4311

CPHEs, given the larger number of handlers, the cost of handler training i s about $3.00 per year. 4312

Keeping records for five years would cost $0.60 to $0.80 more for WP S farms for each type of 4313

training and about $ 0.80 more per CPHE than retaining records for two years . Information from 4314

regulatory agencies indicates that a two year time frame is sufficient allow inspectors to verify 4315

training through records retained by the employer , especially if training is to be conducted 4316

annually . Therefore EPA concludes that , if training occurs more frequently than is currently 4317

required, the longer, five

- year retention period provides little or no additional benefits over the 4318

two

- ye ar period. 4319

4320



### 4.1. 6 TRAIN

- 20 vs 18 and 19 : Training verification 4321

4322

There is currently a voluntary program for states and agricultural employers to use verification 4323

cards to identify workers and handlers who have been trained in accordance with the WPS. The 4324

purpose of the program has been, in part, to provide some means of verifying compliance with 4325

training requirements, but also to provide workers and handlers with proof of training if they 4326

change employers, thus reducing duplicative training. In Chapter 2, we discussed the problems 4327

with the current voluntary program for training verification in which workers and handlers 4328

receive cards they can show to subsequent employers. Primary among the problems is that cards 4329

may be lost or stolen and are too small to contain all the information needed for adequate 4330

verification. These problems reduce employers’ ability to rely on the cards and, therefore, the 4331

ability of employees to use them. This discussion implied that there were few benefits of the 4332

voluntary progra m to justify the expenditure. Eliminating the program (TRAIN

- 18) is estimated, 4333120 in Chapter 3, to save about $567,000 per year, much of it in the cost of the cards which would 4334

accrue to EPA. Making the program mandatory (TRAIN

- 19) is estimated to cost abou t $641,000 4335

per year while a mandatory system that utilizes a copy of the training record as verification 4336

(TRAIN

- 20) is estimated to be cheaper than the current voluntary program. 4337

4338

However, a system of training verification may provide significant benefits in light of the 4339

proposed requirements for annual training (Section 4.1.2), which increases the frequency of 4340

training and thus shortens the period over which the information must be verifiable. The 4341

information will thus be more reliable. The p roposed reco rd keeping requirements discussed in 4342

Section 4.1. 5 would provide sufficient supporting documentation. EPA also notes that a majority 4343

of the benefits may accrue to migrant laborers who may move frequently from farm to farm at 4344

harvest as these workers are t ypically paid by the amount harvested rather than by time worked. 4345

Thus

, the time these workers spend in training

– especially repeated training

– reduces their 4346

wages

. 4347

4348

Wallet size cards of the kind currently used in the voluntary program have the advantage of 4349

being easy for workers to carry. They are more expensive to use, however, due to the time 4350

required to fill them out individually. In addition to being cheaper, use of a copy of the training 4351

register as verification has the distinct advantage of providing subsequent employers with 4352

sufficient information for their records, while verification card of the sort typically used would 4353

not. If subsequent employers would have to personally contact the previous employer to obtain 4354

all the information, t hey are unlikely to be willing to accept the cards as proof of training

. 4355

4356



### 4.2 Hazard Communication Options 4357

4358

The WPS requires agricultural employers to post information on pesticide applications for 4359

workers and handlers at a central location on the farm, n ursery, or greenhouse, known as “central 4360

posting.” The current requirement for central posting includes the display of the following 4361

information: location and description of treated area s , the pesticide product name, EPA pesticide 4362

registration number, the pesticide active ingredient name(s), the time and date the pesticide is to 4363

be applied, and the REI , specified in duration ( e.g. , hours or days). Posting is required for 30 4364

days following the expiration of the REI

. 4365

4366

EPA intended central posting to make pe sticide hazard information available to workers and 4367

handlers in the event of an exposure and so they may learn about chemicals they might be 4368

exposed to in the workplace. However, there are several problems with the central posting 4369

requirement that impede its intended purpose. On large establishments, or those where growing 4370

areas are not contiguous, the central location can be a significant distance from areas where 4371

workers or handlers are working. Employers have informed the Agency that it can be diffi cult 4372

to make changes to the information prior to beginning the application and to ensure that the 4373

information remains current. Weathering of the posted information diminishes its usefulness to 4374

workers and handlers. 4375

4376



### 4.2. 1 HAZCOM

- 0 1 : Availability of appli cation

- specific information 4377

4378121 EPA is proposing to require that employers make pesticide application hazard information

, 4379

available to workers, handlers, and their representatives upon request ( HAZCOM

- 01 ). At the 4380

same time, this revision would eliminate the requirement for the application records to be posted 4381

at a central location. In addition, the application information would add the start and end times 4382

of the REI, rather than simply the duration of the REI. The net cost of this proposal is $1.1 4383

million a nnually or about $2.90 per year per WPS farm, assuming requests are made for 25 4384

percent of applications. 4385

4386

Pesticide safety trainers indicate that limiting worker and handler exposure to pesticides can best 4387

be accomplished by providing simple, clear steps t hat workers and handlers can take to protect 4388

themselves. Complex information about risks of specific pesticides can result in workers and 4389

handlers rejecting the standard safety principles from the training, leading to increased potential 4390

for exposure. In addition, workers may not routinely pass the central posting area because their 4391

workplace is at a different part of the establishment. Thus, central posting is not necessarily an 4392

effective means to communicate with employees. 4393

4394

However, this detailed info rmation would be important in the event a worker or handler is 4395

poisoned and needs medical attention, for example. It is the healthcare provider who most needs 4396

to know to what the patient is exposed in order to provide the proper treatment. The proposed 4397

c hange would continue to make available

, at a designated location

, pesticide application 4398

information for workers and handlers 4399

4400



### 4.2. 2 HAZCOM

- 0 2 vs 03 and 04 : Pesticide

- specific Hazard Communication 4401



### Materials 4402

4403

EPA is proposing that the agricultural employe r compile the SDS and the product label in 4404

addition to the current application record (HAZCOM

- 02). The cost of this requirement is 4405

estimated to be $ 13.50 per year per WPS farm, as explained in Chapter 3

. One alternative would 4406

be to add only the pesticide label to the current information (HAZCOM

- 03), which would cost 4407

about $4.10 per year per WPS farm. These cost estimates are based on posting the information 4408

at a central location. A second alternative would be to require crop sheets (HAZCOM

- 04), 4409

estimate d to cost $33.00 per year per WPS farm. This cost estimates is based on the distribution 4410

of the crop sheets when workers enter a treated area. 4411

4412

As indicated in Section 4.1.3, the detailed information on crop sheets may confuse workers with 4413

overly specific information about pesticide hazards, leading to complacency in some situations 4414

and inappropriate concern in others. A simple, consistent approach to safety, provided through 4415

frequent training, is likely to be more effective. Hazard information is partic ularly valuable in 4416

case of an incident or illness and the SDS will provide the bulk of this value. While the pesticide 4417

label ensures quick identification of a chemical, its primary purpose is to provide direction for 4418

safe use and handling. The SDS provid es information on symptoms, to aid proper diagnosis, and 4419

on treatment

. 4420

4421



### 4.2. 3 HAZCOM

- 05 vs 06 : Recordkeeping and Retention 4422

4423122 As discussed above in TRAIN

- 1 0 and

- 11 , recordkeeping provides several benefits in terms of 4424

verifying the WPS farm’s compliance with the regulations. Keeping records for five years 4425

(HAZCOM

- 06) is slightly more costly than keeping them for two (HAZCOM

- 05) ($8. 40 vs. 4426

$7.60 per WPS farm ) , However, state agencies have indicated that a retention period of more 4427

than two years provides little or no additional benefit. 4428

4429



### 4.2. 4 HAZCOM

- 07: Registrant

- produced crop sheets 4430

4431

EPA considered requiring registrants to publish crop

- specific hazard sheets along with the labels 4432

for all agricultural products. This requirement would support the alterna tive approach to hazard 4433

communication under HAZCOM

- 04. It would also be combined with the expansion of training 4434

under TRAIN

- 06 and 13 for workers and handlers, respectively, so that employees would know 4435

how to interpret and use the crop sheets . As noted in the discussion s above , however, it is not 4436

clear that this additional information provides substantial additional benefits. While this 4437

additional information is useful in certain circumstances, the crop sheet options could confuse 4438

workers with complex pesticide application information that would be counterproductive to 4439

providing workers with simple, consistent pesticide safety messages

. EPA estimate s this 4440

requirement would cost $ 25.3 million over three years , equivalent to $2.9 million annually for 4441

te n years. This cost does not include the cost of developing these sheets, which would likely be 4442

substantial as they would have to be location

- specific

. 4443

4444



### 4.3 Notification Options 4445

4446

In addition to the more general training and hazard communication requirement s, the WPS also 4447

requires that specific information be provided in certain situations . This information is often 4448

necessary so that workers can take action or avoid activities that would put them at risk. 4449

4450



### 4.3.1 NOTIFY

- 01 vs 02 : Posted Notification Timing for O utdoor P roduction 4451

4452

The current rule allows employers to provide workers with either oral or posted warnings about 4453

areas where an REI is in effect unless required by the product label to provide both oral and 4454

posted warnings. NOTIFY

- 01 would require posting if the REI is longer than 48 hours, at an 4455

estimated cost of $1 1.1 million per year, and NOTIFY

- 02 would require posting for REIs longer 4456

than 72 hours, at an estimated cost of $7. 9 million per year. On a per

- farm basis, estimated to 4457

cost are about $2 8.30 per year for NOTIFY

- 01 and about $ 20.10 per year for NOTIFY

- 02. A 4458

WPS farm employs 5.9 workers, on average, so the marginal increase in cost to go from 4459

NOTIFY

- 02 to NOTIFY

- 01 is approximately $1.40 per worker

. 4460

4461

E ntry into pesticide

- treated areas prior to the end of the REI is the second leading factor 4462

contributing to reports of acute occupational pesticide poisoning cases in agricultural workers 4463

(Calvert et al ., 2008) . One reason workers may be entering pesticide

- treated areas is their lack of 4464

a wareness that the area has been treated with a pesticide and is under an REI. Given the 4465

magnitude of the problem, the benefits to an individual worker of posting are likely to be high, 4466

including the marginal benefits of posting when REIs are between 48 an d 72 hours. 4467

4468123 

### 4.3.2 NOTIFY

- 03: Posted Notification Timing

– Enclosed Space Production 4469

4470

The current rule requires posting of the warning sign for all applications in enclosed space 4471

production (greenhouse s and enclosed nurseries ). EPA proposes to re lax this requirement and 4472

allow employers the option s o f oral or posted notification if the product applied has a REI of four 4473

hours or less. This proposal is estimated to save about $10,000 per year, most of which would 4474

accrue to small businesses who can easily in form a few workers that a REI is in effect

. 4475

4476

Given the short duration of the REI, EPA does not anticipate that workers will inadvertently 4477

enter unposted treated areas. Thus, this proposal can reduce the burden on employers without 4478

increasing workers’ risk of exposure

. 4479

4480



### 4.3.3 NOTIFY

- 04 and NOTIFY

- 05 Recordkeeping of Oral Notification 4481

4482

To address concerns that workers may not receive oral notifications of treated areas with REIs 4483

shorter than or equal to 48 hours, EPA considered requir ing that agricultural employers create 4484

and retain records of the oral warning provided, signed by the workers who received the 4485

notification, for 2 years (NOTIFY

- 04) or 5 years (NOTIFY

- 05)

. Given the frequency of 4486

pesticide applications, a large quantity of records would be required. As explained in Chapter 3, 4487

these provisions would cost about $20. 2 to $20. 5 million per year, respectively. 4488

4489

The addition of the proposed recordkeeping component for oral notification could encourage 4490

employers to ensure workers receive accurate information , which in turn could lead to fewer 4491

workers entering fields under a REI and fewer incidents of occupational exposure. EPA has 4492

insufficient data to conclude that there is substantial noncompliance with the existing 4493

requirements and that there would be high benefits associated with these alternative s

. Posting 4494

for long REI (NOTIFY

- 01) and training (TRAIN

- 06) are likely to provide similar benefits at 4495

lower cost. 4496

4497



### 4.3. 4 NOTIFY

- 06 vs 07 : Revise REI warning signs 4498

4499

EPA is proposing minor modi fications to t he current WPS warning sign to utilize a red octagon 4500

as a symbol to stop and the more accurate phrase “Entry Restricted” in place of the blanket 4501

“Keep Out

. ” The cost is likely to be inconsequential, but EPA conservatively estimates it to be 4502

about $0.25 per WPS farm per year

. 4503

4504

EPA also considered using the skull and crossbones symbol , but more critically considered 4505

requiring the REI signs to include information on the pesticide used to treat the field

. As a result, 4506

the cost of this option is estimated to be about $8.00 per year per WPS farm. As noted in 4507

Chapter 2, information about the pesticide used on the REI warning sign is not likely to help the 4508

worker to protect him/herself and thus does not appear to provide substantial benefits

. 4509

4510124 

### 4.3. 4 NOTIFY

- 08 vs 09: Locations of Warning Sign 4511

4512

When the WPS requires a warning sign to be posted, the signs must currently be placed where 4513

they are visible from all usual points of worker entry to the treated area, the corners of the treated 4514

area, or an are a affording maximum visibility and when treated areas are adjacent to worker 4515

housing . EPA proposes to revise the WPS to specify that warning signs must be posted in a 4516

visible location from a worker housing area if the housing is within 100 feet of a treated area 4517

(NOTIFY

- 08)

. This is a clarifying revision and EPA anticipates negligible impacts

. It will 4518

largely reduce the uncertainty around complying with the regulations

. 4519

4520

EPA also cons idered a proposal to require signs to be posted at the usual points of entry and 4521

every 100 feet along the field perimeter (NOTIFY

- 09)

. EPA estimates that this provision would 4522

cost about $6 60 per year per WPS farm. Since good agricultural practices typica lly preclude 4523

walking through fields to avoid crop damage, it is unclear that such extensive posting would 4524

substantially reduce the likelihood that workers inadvertently enter a field under REI. Posting in 4525

cases of relatively long REIs (NOTIFY

- 01) is likel y to result in higher benefits

. 4526

4527



### 4.3. 6 NOTIFY

- 10 vs 11 : Notification to workers prior to performing early entry 4528



### tasks 4529

4530

The WPS prohibits employers from directing workers to enter a treated area where an REI is in 4531

effect except for cases of “limited contact,” “no

- contact,” “short

- term,” “irrigation,” or 4532

“agricultural emergency activities” as defined under the regulations (40 CFR § 170.112). The 4533

WPS requires employers to provide workers that perform early entry tasks under one of these 4534

except ions with the label

- required PPE, to assure that the worker follows the precautions listed 4535

on the label, and to provide water and decontamination supplies nearby for when the worker 4536

exits the field. EPA is propos ing that agricultural employers provide mor e detailed information 4537

to workers prior to performing early entry work in a treated area under a REI. This additional 4538

notification includes the type of contact permitted, length of entry allowed, and the PPE with 4539

which workers must be provided. NOTIFY

- 10 would require that this information be provided 4540

orally and is estimated to cost $ 698 ,000 annually or about $ 1.80 per WPS farm. NOTIFY

- 11 4541

would require the information be provided both orally and in writing; it is estimated to cost $1.1 4542

million per year o r $2.70 per WPS farm per year. 4543

4544

E ntering a treated area during an REI is one of the primary sources of pesticide

- related illness in 4545

workers (Calvert et al. , 2008 )

. P rovid ing workers with more information about how to protect 4546

themselves from pesticide exp osure would ultimately lead to a reduction in the number of 4547

pesticide

- related illnesses associated with early entry into a pesticide

- treated area. Given the 4548

differences in language and frequent low English literacy rates among farmworkers, written 4549

informa tion may not be useful and could distract workers from the oral information. 4550

4551



### 4.3. 7 NOTIFY

- 12 vs 13 : Record keeping for early entry tasks 4552

4553

Given the risks associated with exposure during the REI, verify ing and insuring compliance will 4554

provide substantial benefits. EPA proposes to require agricultural employers to obtain the 4555125 signature of each early entry worker to verify that they received the additional required 4556

information and keep this record on file for 2 years ( NOTIFY

- 1 2) . T he estimated national cost 4557

for this requirement is $ 469 ,000 annually or $1.20 per WPS farm per year, on average

. 4558

Extending the retention period to five years (NOTIFY

- 13) would cost about $2.00 per WPS farm 4559

per year, but the longer period appears to provid e no significant benefits. According to 4560

discussions with state agencies, a two

- year timeframe is adequate for enforcement needs. 4561

4562



### 4.3. 8 NOTIFY

- 14: Revise safety display 4563

4564

The WPS currently requires agricultural establishments to post a pesticide safety p oster listing 4565

basic pesticide safety information . With NOTIFY

- 1 4 , the Agency is proposing to augment the 4566

required content to provide additional medical information and emergency contact information

, 4567

including contact information for the state or tribal re gulatory agency. This additional 4568

information will reinforce the safety training in aspects that are not part of routine activities, i.e.

, 4569

recognizing pesticide poisoning and knowing whom to call in case of a pesticide exposure 4570

incident. If there are any changes in contact information, posters must be updated promptly . It is 4571

critical that such information be readily available because workers and hand lers are unlikely to 4572

retain emergency contact information if it is only presented orally. 4573

4574

The incrementa l cost of NOTIFY

- 1 4 would be the time required to include this information on 4575

existing safety programs, which would be done by the WPS farm. The annualized cost is 4576

estimated to be about $ 108 ,000 or about $0. 30 per WPS farm per year. 4577

4578



### 4.3. 9 NOTIFY

- 15 and 16 vs 17 : Number and location of safety display s 4579

4580

Currently, safety information must be displayed at a central location on the WPS farm, along 4581

with any application

- specific information (see HAZCOM

- 01 , Section 4.2. 1 ). EPA proposes that 4582

employers maintain th e central safety display and also display the information at 4583

decontamination sites. NOTIFY

- 1 5 governs sites for field workers and NOTIFY

- 1 6 addresses 4584

handler sites. The value of displaying the information in a main area through which workers will 4585

frequen tly pass is to reinforce pesticide training. However, it is also important that the 4586

information be displayed at sites where the information will be most useful

, that is, along with 4587

decontamination supplies

. 4588

4589

The cost of these requirements comes from the c ost of new posters or displays and the labor to 4590

post them. On an annual basis, the cost for worker decontamination sites (NOTIFY

- 1 5 ) is 4591

estimated to be $ 2.0 million or $ 5.10 per WPS farm. EPA anticipates that these requirements 4592

will impose costs that vary by the size of the operation. The smallest WPS farms, for example, 4593

with two or three workers may need only one safety display, and will incur costs below the 4594

average. The cost for handler decontamination sites (NOTIFY

- 1 6 ) is estimated to be $ 784 ,000 4595

or $2.00 for WPS farms that employs handlers

. 4596

4597

An alternative (NOTIFY

- 1 7 ) would be to require safety information to be posted along with REI 4598

warning signs . Although the additio nal safety display would help to reinforce safety training 4599

because they would increase the number of times they were seen, there is no particular value to 4600126 associating the displays with REI warnings as accidental exposure can occur in many situations, 4601

not j ust entry into a recently treated field. EPA estimates the incremental cost of this option to 4602

be about $ 4. 8 million annually, or around $ 1 2.10 per WPS farm, on average, or nearly double the 4603

cost of NOTIFY

- 1 5 and 16 combined

. 4604

4605



### 4.3. 10 NOTIFY

- 18: Notificati on by commercial applicators 4606

4607

The WPS currently requires handler and worker employers to exchange information about 4608

pesticide applications before the application takes place and immediately upon any change, 4609

including minor changes in the start and end time of an application. EPA is pr oposing to codify 4610

existing guidance regarding when information must be transmitted. For example, m inor changes 4611

in timing (less than 1 hour) that would not affect the REI would not have to be reported. No 4612

costs are anticipated; benefits are mainly the res olution of regulatory uncertainty

. 4613

4614



### 4.4 Age Requirement Options 4615

4616

The WPS does not currently establish age restrictions on workers or handlers covered by the 4617

regulation. This is problematic for two reasons . First, young people may be more susceptible to 4618

p esticides because their systems are still developing. Second, adolescents generally take more 4619

risks than do adults; they may not accurately gauge risks and they may discount the potential 4620

consequences of those risks. Minimum age requirements for certain activities could have 4621

substantial benefits, specifically workers performing tasks in fields during a REI and as pesticide 4622

handlers where exposure may be high

. 4623

4624

Under the proposal, these age restrictions do not apply to persons covered by the immediate 4625

fami ly exemption. 4626

4627



### 4.4.1 AGE

- 01 vs 02 : Minimum age for early entry activities 4628

4629

Early entry activities are allowed under certain situations , including agricultural emergencies 4630

where, for example, a freeze is expected to cause damage to a crop . The fact that the REI has not 4631

expired indicates that there is heightened risk from exposure to pesticide residues. Precluding 4632

adolescents from these activities protects their more susceptible systems from this exposure. 4633

Reduced exposure can reduce the number of children who suffer occupational pesticide

- related 4634

illnesses, as well as protect them from chronic and developmental effects that may be associated 4635

with children’s exposure to pesticides. 4636

4637

EPA is proposing to establish a minimum age of 16 for wo rkers to engage in early entry 4638

activities (AGE

- 01) , which is estimated to cost about $ 1 56 ,000 per year, or $0. 40 per year per 4639

WPS farm, on average, due to the cost of employing adults at a higher wage rate for these 4640

activities. However, t he cost of this p rovision is actually one of scheduling available workers 4641

rather than employing different workers. This option would potentially protect about 1 9,000 4642

workers under the age of 16, and cost about $8. 20 per adolescent. A second option, to establish a 4643

minimum age of 18 (AGE

- 01), is estimated to cost $ 7 23 ,000 per year, or $ 1. 80 per year per WPS 4644127 farm. This option would cover about 86,9 00 workers under the age of 18 at a cost of $ 8. 30 per 4645

adolescent. T hus , the cost

- effectiveness of the two options is very simil ar. 4646

4647

Children less than 1 6 years old working on family farms that qualify under the immediate family 4648

exemption would not be prohibited from engaging in early entry activities under the EPA’s 4649

proposed option. 4650

4651



### 4.4.2 AGE

- 03 vs AGE

- 04 : Establish Minimum Age for Handling Pesticides 4652

4653

Similarly, EPA considered two options for a minimum age requirement for WPS handlers, AGE

4654

03, a prohibition on persons younger than 1 6 years of age from handling pesticides and AGE

- 04, 4655

which limits WPS handling activities to individuals 1 8 years of age and older. 4656

4657

The benefits of an age restriction for handlers are similar to those for workers engaged in early 4658

entry activities. Moreover, since handlers work directly with pesticides, there is greater potential 4659

for risks to the mselves and others. EPA is proposing to prohibit persons younger than 1 6 from 4660

handling pesticides (AGE

- 03). EPA estimates that this restriction would protect more than 1,000 4661

adolescents currently handling pesticides. The alternative, a minimum age of 1 8 (AGE

- 04), 4662

would prote ct about 4, 8 00 adolescents , including around 200 adolescents working for CPHEs

. 4663

4664

The total cost of the proposed minimum age is estimated to be $ 466 ,000 per year and would 4665

likely only cost WPS farms about $ 2.40 per year, on average. G iven the small number of 4666

adolescents under 16 tasked with handling pesticides, the cost is about $4 60 per adolescent. The 4667

estimated cost of limiting handling to person s over 18 years of age is $ 3. 1 million per year 4668

nationally. This would cost an average WPS establishment about $ 11.20 annually and a CPHE 4669

about $ 317 annually , although the latter estimate in particular is likely to be highly conservative 4670

because of the number of hours adolescents are assumed to work . Consider ing that nearly 4, 8 00 4671

adolescent s may be engaged in handling activities, the cost is about $6 30 per adolescent. The 4672

cost effectiveness, in terms of cost per adolescent protected, is somewhat better for the proposed 4673

option. However, the estimate for the minimum age of 18 is heavily infl uenced by the 4674

assumptions about the number of hours worked by adolescents in CPHEs

. 4675

4676

Children less than 1 6 years old working on family farms that qualify under the immediate family 4677

exemption would not be prohibited from engaging in handling activities under the EPA’s 4678

proposed option. 4679

4680



### 4.5 Entry Restriction Options 4681

4682

Existing entry restrictions are primarily ai med at protecting farm workers during and after 4683

pesticide applications. The goal of the revisions is to strengthen those protections. 4684

4685



### 4.5.1 ENTRY

- 01 and 02 : Entry restricted areas 4686

4687

While the WPS currently includes requirements for entry

- restricted areas around the treated area 4688

during applications to nurseries and in greenhouses, there are no entry

- restricted areas during 4689128 applications on farms and forests. Currently, a worker on a farm may be assigned to work in an 4690

area immediately adjacent to the treate d area where a pesticide application is taking place. Many 4691

incidents of drift and off

- target applications have resulted in reported worker illnesses. Drift is 4692

cited in a SENSOR

- Pesticides/CDPR publications as the leading factor contributing to pesticide 4693

poisoning incidents reported among agricultural workers from 1998

- 2005 (Calvert et al. , 2008). 4694

4695

Additionally, the current rule requires handlers to “assure that no pesticide is applied so as to 4696

contact, either directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately 4697

trained and equipped handler.” However, the current regulatory language fails to provide 4698

handlers with a clear course of action if they observe a person, other than a trained and properly 4699

equipped handler, to be presen t in the entry

- restricted area. 4700

4701

EPA proposes ENTRY

- 01, the establishment of entry

- restricted areas during applications for 4702

farms and forests. Extending the protection of entry

- restricted areas for all WPS

- covered 4703

workers is a simple way to improve worker safety. A second revision, ENTRY

- 02

, specif ies that 4704

handlers must “cease application” if a non

- handler enter s the treated and entry

- restricted area s. 4705

The revisions entail minor regulatory improvements and clarifications while resulting in 4706

potentially si gnificant impacts on reducing incidents of worker exposure to drift. The cost 4707

estimated for restricting entry to perimeters adjacent to an area being treated is negligible, 4708

because workers can be reassigned temporarily while the application takes place. 4709

4710



### 4.5. 2 ENTRY

- 03 vs 04 and 05 : Duration of Early Entry Activities 4711

4712

As described above (Section 4.3.6) , the WPS provides for exceptions to entry restrictions so that 4713

certain activities considered critical to successful agricultural production can take place during a 4714

REI. The exceptions to the entry restrictions allow entry into an area under an REI for activities 4715

with limited contact with treated surfaces, irrigation activities, certain short

- term activities, and 4716

activities associated with agricultural emer gencies. The “limited contact” and irrigation 4717

exceptions allow workers to be in a treated area for up to eight hours but e xisting regulations do 4718

not establish a limit on the duration workers are allowed in the treated area for agricultural 4719

emergencies . S ince length of exposure is a factor in the amount of residue a person may contact, 4720

limiting the time in the field effectively reduces the dose a worker may receive. 4721

4722

EPA considered two options. ENTRY

- 0 3 would impose a four

- hour time limit in a 24

- hour 4723

tim eframe for an individual early entry worker during an agricultural emergency exception while 4724

ENTRY

- 0 4 would impose a n eight

- hour time limit for the agricultural emergency exception if a 4725

product requiring double notification (both oral and posting) was util ized

. 4726

4727

As explained in Section 3.3, neither option entails measurable costs, given the rarity that double 4728

notification products are used combined with the occurrence of an emergency, and the possibility 4729

of rotating workers if the activity is longer than normal. Thus, ENTRY

- 0 3 , which would provide 4730

some additional benefit for the worker in comparison to ENTRY

- 0 4 , is proposed. 4731

4732

Another option would simply be to eliminate the exceptions to the REI and avoid all associated 4733

exposures (ENTRY

- 05). Agricultural production is subject to many weather

- related risks and 4734129 problems cannot always be foreseen. EPA estimates that eliminating the exception to the REI 4735

could cost almost $250 million annually in lost production. 4736

4737



### 4.5. 3 ENTRY

- 0 6 vs 0 7 : Cholinesterase Inhibition 4738

4739

EPA considered requiring a monitoring program for cholinesterase inhibition for handlers 4740

working regularly with certain organophosphate and N

- methyl carbamate pesticides. If a 4741

handler’s cholinesterase levels dropped below a set threshold, they would be restricted from 4742

further applications until their levels returned to normal. EPA estimates that a national program, 4743

modeled on the current program operating in Washington State, would cost about $ 95 per 4744

handler involved in the program, or $ 15.2 m illion annually. 4745

4746

T he Washington experience indicates that cholinesterase levels rarely drop below the threshold 4747

of concern ; only one percent of participating handlers had cholinesterase depression at the trigger 4748

level in 2007 (Furman, 2007). A secondar y benefit of the program, according to the Washington 4749

experience, is the identification of farms that may need to alter their pesticide application 4750

practices, identified by handlers showing some cholinesterase inhibition, but not sufficient to 4751

warrant remo val from further handling tasks. Most recommendations stemming from 4752

Washington farm evaluations are for increased training and proper use of PPE. EPA is 4753

proposing significant expansions to the current WPS requirements to improve handler training 4754

and encou rage the proper use of PPE on all agricultural establishments covered by the WPS. 4755

Together, the training and PPE proposals are expected to address pesticide exposure risks faced 4756

by all handlers, including the select population of handlers that are at risk for cholinesterase 4757

inhibition. The proposed handler training and PPE requirements are proactive and are expected 4758

to prevent handler exposure whereas cholinesterase monitoring would only identify a problem 4759

after the exposure has occurred. 4760

4761

EPA also consid ered restricting the number of hours handlers may work with OPs and N

- methyl 4762

carbamates to no more than 30 hours over a 30

- day period (ENTRY

- 07 ). This option is 4763

estimated to cost about $4.2 million annually. However, the benefits of the approach are high ly 4764

uncertain. D ata to establish a specific limit of this type of proposal are not available

. 4765

4766



### 4.6 PPE Options 4767

4768

Personal protective equipment (PPE) can be critical for reducing exposure by routes such as 4769

inhalation and dermal exposure. Pesticide product labels provide directions for the appropriate 4770

equipment and the situations in which it is required. Provisions in the WPS support the label 4771

directions by setting criteria to e nsure that PPE is of good quality and is used appropriately

. 4772

Potential revisions reflect the goal of enhancing protections for workers and handlers. 4773

4774



### 4.6.1 PPE

- 01: Require fit test for handlers using products requiring respirator 4775



### PPE 4776

4777130 Handlers can be exposed to significant inhalation risks during pesticide mixing, loading, a nd 4778

application. The current WPS requires handler employers to ensure that handlers’ respirators fit 4779

correctly and that the handler is trained to use it , but the regulation does not explicitly require fit

4780

testing. EPA’s exposure and risk assessments assum e that respirators fit. Respirators that do not 4781

fit properly may result in preventable handler exposure to pesticides. 4782

4783

EPA is proposing to incorporate OSHA’s standards for respirator fit testing into WPS 4784

requirements

. The proposal will establish a consis tent approach for all employers to follow that 4785

will improve protection when a handler uses a pesticide product that requires a respirator. 4786

OSHA’s standard, 29 CFR 1910.134, includes a specific standard for fitting the respirator on the 4787

user, instruction o n how to recognize when the respirator seal may be broken

, and what steps to 4788

take if this occurs . There is also a requirement for the respirator user to be medically evaluated 4789

to ensure the handler is healthy enough to use a respirator. EPA estimates the annual cost to be 4790

about $8 2 per handler that obtains a fit test or $ 10.6 million per year . The average annual cost 4791

would be about $ 54.40 for WPS farms that hire handlers

. CPHEs are assumed to follow OSHA 4792

guidelines currently, given the nature of the bus iness

. 4793

4794

E nsuring that respirators fit properly will increase their effectiveness

, ultimately lead ing to a 4795

reduction in occupational pesticide

- related illnesses. 4796

4797



### 4.6.2 PPE

- 02 and PPE

- 03: Eliminate exception s from PPE for employees acting 4798



### under CCAs 4799

4800

T he current PPE exemptions for employees working under the supervision of certified crop 4801

advisors (CCAs) may result in reduced safety due to informational gaps. Employees may be 4802

unaware of the risks posed by pesticides while the supervisor may be unaware o f the level of 4803

contact the employee has with treated surfaces

. This is different from the ability of the CCA to 4804

make appropriate judgments regarding personal risk and the revisions will retain the exemption 4805

for certified or licensed crop advisors to enter and perform crop advising tasks during an REI. 4806

4807

The Agency is proposing to eliminate the exemption for the employees of WPS farms (PPE

- 02) 4808

and employees of commercial CCAs (PPE

- 03) wh o are not certified but are working under a 4809

CCA

. Such e mployees would be required to use the label specified PPE and have available 4810

decontamination supplies and emergency assistance would be provided in case of a suspected 4811

pesticide

- related illness. 4812

4813

As d iscussed in Section 3.3.7, the costs associated with these revisions is likely negligible 4814

because PPE and decontamination supplies would already be available and because entry to 4815

perform crop advising tasks during an REI is a rare event, especially for unc ertified employees 4816

(Jones and Smith, 2006)

. 4817

4818



### 4.6.3 PPE

- 04: Standards for closed system exceptions 4819

4820

The existing WPS permits exceptions to the label

- specified PPE when using a closed system for 4821

mixing and loadings activities. The existing rule, h owever, does not provide specific criteria for 4822131 an acceptable closed system. State enforcement agencies have expressed concern that the 4823

existing language is vague, impractical, and unenforceable. As a result, many farms and CPHEs 4824

may have inadequate systems resul ting in inadvertent exposure of handlers and others in the 4825

area. The proposed revision, PPE

- 04, would establish specific criteria for closed systems that are 4826

enforceable ensure and ensure that a system is protective of handlers. The proposed standards 4827

ar e based on California criteria. P roperly de signed and employed closed systems afford superior 4828

protection for handlers, other individuals, and the environment 4829

4830

EPA estimates the cost of this proposal to be equivalent to about $ 6.9 million per year, with 4831

av erage annualized costs of about $ 25 for large and large

- small WPS farms (those making more 4832

than $100,000 in annual sales), $12 per year for large family farms (those making more than 4833

$750,000 in annual sales), and about $ 48 per year for CPHEs. The costs i nclude the purchase of 4834

new systems by some firms or farms and some increase in costs for the more frequent utilization 4835

of the available PPE for those who choose not to upgrade their systems. In terms of cost

4836

effectiveness, considering the number of handle rs , including self

- employed commercial handlers 4837

and handlers on family farms, the cost per handler of improved protection is about $20 per year

. 4838

4839



### 4.6. 4 PPE

- 0 5: Render contaminated PPE unwearable 4840

4841

The WPS requires employers either to clean contaminated PPE or to dispose of it properly

. PPE 4842

can become contaminated with pesticides from routine use or spills, and if re

- worn, can expose 4843

the wearer to those pesticide residues. EPA proposes to require that contaminated PPE , if it 4844

cannot be properly cleaned, b e rend ered unusable before disposal. This clarification is in 4845

response to concerns raised by Sta te agencies that contaminated PPE m ay be reused if not 4846

destroyed. 4847

4848

This would protect workers, handlers and other s from unnecessary exposure resulting from the 4849

wearing of contaminated garments. For example, if absorbent coveralls contaminated from 4850

overuse or soaked in pesticide from a spill are discarded in a trash bin, a person in need of 4851

additional clothing may find the discarded garment and attempt to wear it . Cutting the garment 4852

apart would make it less likely that a person would attempt to wear it and be exposed to the 4853

pesticide residues. 4854

4855

The cost is expected to be negligible. T he employer must dispose of contaminated PPE under 4856

the existing requirements and t here is expected to be minimal additional burden on the employer 4857

to render the PPE unusable

. 4858

4859



### 4.7 Decontamination Supply Options 4860

4861

On

- site dec ontamination can be a critical first step in mitigating exposure to pesticides. The 4862

WPS and associated gui dance specifies the materials that should be available. 4863

4864



### 4.7.1 SUPPLY

- 01 and SUPPLY

- 02: Decontamination supplies for workers 4865

4866132 The WPS requires that water for decontamination be available for workers engaged in tasks in 4867

fields previously treated with pesticides, but does not specify the quantity of water that is 4868

necessary. Existing guidance indicates that one gallon per worker is enough for such routine 4869

situations. SUPPLY

- 01 would incorporate this guidance into the WPS to eliminate any 4870

regulatory unc ertainty. No cost is expected with this revision. 4871

4872

Currently, the same standard applies to workers engaged in activities in fields during a REI. 4873

Given the potential for higher levels of residue remaining on plant material, accidental contact 4874

( e.g. , a wor ker slips and falls into foliage) could result in higher exposure than might occur in 4875

routine situations. SUPPLY

- 02 would increase the amount of water that must be available to 4876

three gallons per worker. In Chapter 3, EPA estimates the cost for the additi onal water would be 4877

less than $ 0.01 per WPS farm. W ater is generally available at negligible pumping cost or from a 4878

water district while the benefits from potential mitigation of accidental exposure appear high in 4879

comparison. 4880

4881



### 4.7.2 SUPPLY

- 03 vs 04 : Deco ntamination supplies for handlers 4882

4883

Similar to the situation for workers, WPS requires water be available for handlers without 4884

specifying the quantity. Guidance indicates three gallons per handler is enough for routine 4885

washing, and emergency decontaminatio n. SUPPLY

- 03 would incorporate this guidance to 4886

eliminate any regulatory uncertainty. As above, no cost is expected with this revision. 4887

4888

EPA considered adding a requirement for handler employers to provide shower facilities for 4889

handlers, SUPPLY

- 04. The benefits of this option are highly uncertain. Provisions for 4890

emergency decontamination, including eye rinsing, are already in place or proposed (see 4891

SUPPLY

- 05 below). Showering prior to going home would reduce the likelihood of transporting 4892

pesticide re sidues to the handler’s home, but it is questionable whether many employees would 4893

routinely utilize showers even if they were available. Representatives of agricultural employers 4894

on the SBREFA panel noted that in their experience, when showers are availab le that handlers 4895

opt not to use them. There are a number of reasons people may not avail themselves of shower 4896

facilities, including the need for a change of clothes or a simple preference for showering in the 4897

privacy of their own home. Some cultural beli efs and practices may factor into this decision not 4898

to utilize existing shower facilities (Arcury et al . 2001). 4899

4900

Requiring employers to provide showers would be costly; the estimated cost of building each 4901

shower facility is $105,000. Nationally, this woul d cost about $ 22.7 billion dollars for 4902

construction alone, with WPS farms bearing the vast majority of the burden. The cost for 4903

CPHEs to install showers would be about $ 2.5 billion . This estimate does not include the cost of 4904

maintenance. SBREFA panelist s commented that if the shower option were to become a WPS 4905

requirement, many agricultural employers would avoid the high cost of compliance by choosing 4906

not to employ handlers on their establishment. If this were to occur, a requirement for shower 4907

faciliti es for handlers would cause employers to avoid hiring handlers and could lead to job loss 4908

of over 150,000 handlers in the agricultural industry. As noted in Chapter 3 (Section 3.3.9), this 4909

may not be direct job losses, but rather the loss of higher

- paid p ositions. Less expensive options, 4910

such as simple outdoor showers with privacy screens, might be used. But such options are even 4911

less likely to be used by an employee than a more complete facility. 491213 3 4913

The additional training content for handlers that is pro posed in TRAIN

- 1 4 , including take

- home 4914

exposure information to protect the children and families of workers, along with the proposed 4915

clarification to the eye

- rinsing requirements in SUPPLY

- 05 were also considered in comparing 4916

the relative costs and benefits of requiring showers for handlers. These provisions can 4917

effectively achieve similar benefits at a lower cost. 4918

4919



### 4.7.3 SUPPLY

- 05 vs 06 : Emergency eye flushing 4920

4921

The current rule requires employers to provide wate r to handlers for use in case of an ocular 4922

exposure to a pesticide when the pesticide label calls for eye protection. Stakeholders have 4923

indicated that, even with protective eyewear, handlers, particularly those mixing and loading 4924

pesticides, can be expose d from splashes that enter the eye. This can result in serious injury to 4925

the eye. 4926

4927

For similar ocular risks in industrial situations, OSHA establishes eyeflush requirements that 4928

specify the length of flushing and flow rate. EPA proposes, under SUPPLY

- 05, to adopt these 4929

requirements for establishments with permanent pesticide mixing sites. As discussed in Section 4930

3.3.9, this requirement would have little or no cost since these sites would typically have a 4931

source of water. 4932

4933

An alternative (SUPPLY

- 06) would be to require portable eyewash stations that could be moved 4934

to temporary sites, i.e. , fields to be treated. As mentioned in Chapter 2 (Section 2.4.2), however, 4935

there are some drawbacks to the use of portable stations. According to state field personnel, they 4936

are difficult to maintain, especially to keep clean and of a temperature safe to use in the eye. It is 4937

also not clear that they are substantially more effective than the traditional water bottle in rinsing 4938

the eyes. Moreover, they are expensive. E PA estimates the cost to be about $ 13.6 million per 4939

year nationally, or over $55 per year per farm or CPHE. The stations cost about $280 4940

(Gempler’s, 2008) and EPA assumes that maintenance costs are ten percent of the purchase 4941

price. The cost estimate als o assumes that the stations last ten years, which may overestimate 4942

their durability. 4943

4944



### 4.8 Emergency Assistance Options 4945

4946

The current WPS requires the agricultural or handler employee to provide “prompt” 4947

transportation to a health care facility in the event of a pesticide exposure emergency. The term 4948

“prompt” lacks specificity and any delay in seeking medical attention durin g an emergency may 4949

endanger the exposed worker or handler. The time between an accident and receipt of medical 4950

care may be critical in treating a person with pesticide poisoning. 4951

4952

OSHA requires that a worker injured on the job receive medical treatment, c larifying the 4953

requirement to mean within 3

- 4 minutes if the injury is life

- threatening or 15 minutes if it is not 4954

life

- threatening (29 CFR 1926.50(a)). Based on the physical differences between a WPS 4955

establishment and typical industrial locations covered by OSHA, it is reasonable to allow 4956134 agricultural employers and handler employers a longer timeframe to reach an exposed worker 4957

and to provide transportation. 4958

4959

EPA proposes EMERG

- 01 and EMERG

- 03, which would require employers to begin transport 4960

for workers a nd handlers to a medical facility within thirty minutes of learning of an exposure. 4961

T he employer would also be required to provide the SDS and pesticide label, or comparable 4962

information, to the treating medical personnel (see HAZCOM

- 02) . EPA also conside red 4963

requiring agricultural and handler employers to provide transportation to workers and handlers 4964

within one hour in the event of an exposure emergency (EMERG

- 02 and 04). A shorter time 4965

frame is clearly preferable. Neither time frame is expected to impo se measurable costs

, 4966

particularly as cell phones become more readily available and service becomes more reliable

. 4967

4968135 

## Chapter 5

. Costs of Proposed Rule 4969

4970

This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the cost of proposed changes to the worker protection 4971

standards . EPA estimates the incremental cost of the proposed rule to be between $ 6 2.1 and 4972

$ 7 2. 9 million per year, given a three percent discount rate. If we use the alternate growth rates 4973

for farms and farm labor estimated from a longer series of data that show slower declines over 4974

time (see Chapter 3), the cost of the proposed rule is to be $6 3. 0 to $7 3.8 million per year. Using 4975

a seven percent discount rate, the rule is estimated to cost between $ 6 1.2 and $ 7 3. 6 million per 4976

year. The range of costs reflects the difference of a two year delay in the implementation of the 4977

proposed training and notification requirements versus immediate implementation. A major 4978

driver of the total cost is the large number of establ ishments that are covered by the WPS , nearly 4979

400,000 farms, not counting those eligible for the immediate family exemption, and over 40,000 4980

commercial pesticide application firms including self

- employed commercial applicators

. Given 4981

a three percent discou nt rate, t he cost for large WPS farms, defined as those with annual sales of 4982

$750,000 or more, is estimated to be between $ 3 40 and $ 40 0 per year. The incremental cost to 4983

small WPS farms is estimated to be between $ 1 30 and $ 1 50 per year. For small farms, the cost 4984

represents 0. 1 percent of average annual sales. As noted in Chapter 1, the farms impacted by the 4985

WPS are those agricultural establishments, including crop farms, livestock operations with crop 4986

production, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labo r and use pesticides. The impact on family 4987

farms is limited to changes in the standard for closed systems and is estimated to cost less than 4988

$40 per year, on average, to approximately 9,000 farms out of about 500,000 family farms that 4989

use pesticides. Com mercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs) are also affected by the 4990

WPS , with an annual incremental cost between $ 170 and $ 190 , although self

- employed 4991

commercial applicators will face costs of only about $ 80 per year. Forestry operations are also 4992

c overed by WPS, but we lack the data on co

- occurrence of pesticide use and covered activities 4993

(hand labor) on these establishments to confidently estimate the impact of WPS requirements. 4994

Pesticide use in forestry operations is likely to be widely separated from worker activities in both 4995

time and space, with the exception of seedling nurseries. 4996

4997

These costs amount to an average expenditure of approximately $ 25 to $ 30 per year per 4998

employee, not including self

- employed handlers (both commercial applicators and on family 4999

farms) who benefit from some of the revisions. 5000

5001

The national incremental costs presented in this chapter should be considered an upper bound for 5002

two reasons. First, EPA has generally made conservative assumptions about the impact of 5003

individual requirements, which together lead to overestimation of the costs. For example, we 5004

have assumed that pesticide safety training occurs regardless of the use of pesticides. In fact, 5005

farms that do not need to use pesticides because of low pest pressure do no t need to provide 5006

safety training. We have also assumed that workers are largely permanent and present on the 5007

farm throughout the growing season. As a result, employers are assumed to notify all workers of 5008

all applications at the time the application is made. In reality, many workers are employed 5009

temporarily for certain peak activities, such as weeding, thinning, and harvesting. Employers 5010

will only need to notify those workers of the relevant pesticide applications (recent applications 5011

to specific field s) and can do at the time of employment. Second, the costs are estimated 5012

assuming that all requirements are applicable to all farms producing crops and all employees of 5013136 those farms. In reality, most WPS requirements cover farmworkers who engage in hand l abor 5014

activities associated with crop production. 5015

5016

A more realistic estimate would consider that much of U.S. agriculture is mechanized and that 5017

workers are not involved in hand labor activities. For example, the primarily livestock 5018

operations that also pr oduce crops likely grow forage crops or field crops like corn and soybean 5019

that are highly mechanized. Since they are not engaged in hand labor activities, employers and 5020

employees would not be covered by the field worker requirements of the WPS. Only the handler 5021

requirements would apply. They would be required to: 5022

 Conduct handler pesticide safety training; 5023

 Maintain records of pesticide applications; 5024

 Provide handler pesticide safety training; 5025

 Provide handler safety displays and decontamination supplies; 5026

 Co mply with minimum age requirements for pesticide handlers; and 5027

 Comply with all PPE requirements. 5028

However, farms without fieldworkers engaged in hand labor activities would not be required to: 5029

 Conduct worker pesticide safety training; 5030

 Provide worker pesticide safety displays; 5031

 Provide worker decontamination supplies; nor 5032

 Provide notification of REIs, either orally or by posting. 5033

If we separate the 153,000 primarily livestock farms from the 242,000 primarily crop farms and 5034

their 1.8 million workers, and assume that only the latter represent the farms with hand labor 5035

activities, the total incremental cost of the proposed revisions is around $5 1.2 to $5 9.2 million 5036

per year. This estimate is still likely biased upward somewhat. It maintains the relatively 5037

conservative assumptions about the impacts of individual requirements and includes many crop 5038

farms that will not be using hand labor in production. 5039

5040

A lower bound estimate would include the 157,000 farms producing field crops, such as grains, 5041

oilseeds, fo rage, and potatoes, in the same category as the predominantly livestock operations. 5042

Production of these crops is highly mechanized and such farms may have pesticide handlers, but 5043

not fieldworkers of the kind covered by the WPS. In this scenario, which as sumes over 84,000 5044

farms with 1.3 million, fully covered, workers and 310,000 farms with handlers only, total 5045

incremental costs are estimated to be between $3 9

. 1 and $4 3.7 million annually . It is difficult to 5046

assess the extent of bias in this estimate. It maintains the conservative assumptions about the 5047

individual requirements, but many farms that mainly produce field crops will also produce fruit 5048

and vegetable crops that utilize hand labor. On the other hand, some farms that primarily 5049

produce fruit and v egetable crops will also produce field crops and some portion of their work 5050

force may not be covered by the WPS. Further, within the covered farms we include nearly 5051

11,000 farms that primarily produce cotton and/or tobacco as our categorization of the dat a does 5052

not allow us to separate farms of these types. Cotton is highly mechanized, but tobacco 5053

production often entails hand labor activities, so we include them in the covered farms. 5054

5055

It should be noted that, as the scenarios focus on a subset of farms, the estimated per

- farm 5056

impacts can vary. Fruit, nut, and vegetable farms, nurseries, and greenhouses tend to employ 5057

more workers per farm than do livestock operations. If we consider the livestock operations to 5058

be ‘handler only’ farms, the impacts on the m is much smaller, on average, than to crop farms. 5059137 Large ‘handler only’ farms are estimated to incur impacts of $18 0 to $190 per year, on average, 5060

while the estimated average impact to small ‘handler only’ farms is less than $50 per year. Large 5061

crop farm s, in contrast, are estimated to bear additional cost of $3 7 5 to $4 4 0 per year, on 5062

average, which is slightly higher than the range presented in this chapter. The estimated 5063

incremental cost to small crop farms is $14 0 to $160 per year, very close to that associated with 5064

the upper bound of the national incremental cost. 5065

5066

This chapter provides the costs of the suite of revisions to the WPS that were selected on the 5067

basis of the cost s, estimated in Chapter 3, and benefits , described in Chapter 2 , as well as o ther 5068

considerations explained in the NPRM. It does not provide costs of alternative packages of 5069

revisions as this would not contribute additional information to the decision

- making process

. 5070

The relative net benefits of the options for the individual requ irements , discussed in Chapter 4, 5071

are largely, although not entirely, independent of each other. For example, t he relative net 5072

benefits of annual to biennial training (TRAIN

- 03 and 04 , see Section 4.1.2 ) would not be 5073

substantially altered if paired with w ritten information about a pesticide if entering a field under 5074

a REI (NOTIFY

- 11) instead of oral information (NOTIFY

- 10) (see Section 4.3.6)

. Pesticide 5075

safety training provides workers with generic information about potential effects of pesticides 5076

and how to reduce exposure, but people tend to forget such lessons over time. Providing specific 5077

information at the time of potential exposure makes the training lessons actionable, but merely 5078

making the specific information more tangible will not make two

- year old generic lessons more 5079

memorable. Thus, a comparison of the costs and benefits of the proposed package of selected 5080

revisions to alternative packages of the rejected options would be redundant. 5081

5082

To formalize this mathematically, let the net benefits of O ption A be designated NB(A). Then, if 5083

5084

NB(A) > NB(B) for Component 1, and 5085

5086

NB(C) > NB(D) for Component 2, then 5087

5088

NB(A & C) > NB(B & D) or any other combination for the two components. 5089

5090

Note that all decisions were made in comparison to the baseline, tha t is, the option of making no 5091

changes to existing requirements. 5092

5093

This Chapter is organized as follows. Section 5.1 explains the methodology used to estimate the 5094

cost of the proposed revisions. Section 5.2 presents the estimation where Section 5.2.1 addre sses 5095

the proposed training component, Section 5.2.2 presents the costs of the proposed hazard 5096

communication and notification components, Section 5.2.3 summarizes the cost of proposed 5097

minimum age, entry restrictions, and PPE requirements, and Section 5.2.4 addresses the 5098

proposed decontamination supply and emergency response requirements. Section 5.2.5 sums up 5099

the components and presents the total estimated cost of the proposed rule. Section 5.3 then 5100

discusses the potential for impacts on employment and Sec tion 5.4 presents the analysis of small 5101

business impacts. 5102

5103



### 5.1 General Methodology 5104

5105138 The most straightforward approach to estimating the cost of the proposed rule is to sum the costs 5106

of the individual regulations contained therein. While largely independent of each other, the cost 5107

of a suite of regulations is not necessarily the sum of the costs of individual regulations, 5108

however. In some cases, there is duplication as, for example, in the documentation of 5109

application information. Agricultural e mployers are required to have the information available 5110

for employees and to retain the information in their records, but the same document can be used 5111

for both purposes. For these cases, EPA identifies the duplication and subtracts those costs from 5112

the t otal. 5113

5114

In other cases, there is overlap without complete duplication as, for example, when one 5115

regulation requires additional content on a sign, which increases the material cost, and another 5116

regulation requires more frequent use of signs. These cases req uire a more complicated 5117

adjustment in which common costs are subtracted ( e.g. , the cost for the lower number of signs), 5118

but additional costs must be included ( e.g. , the higher cost of the signs). In the case of worker 5119

and handler training, the interaction s between increased frequency and increased content 5120

(duration) are particularly complex and the simplest approach is to re

- estimate the incremental 5121

costs for a subset of the regulations before summing them with the other regulations. 5122

5123

That said, the simple sum of the proposed revisions is $6 5.1 million dollars, which is within the 5124

estimated range of the total cost. 5125

5126

The general methodology for estimating the cost of a suite of individual requirements is similar 5127

to that for the potential requirements. We be gin by estimating the cost per actor of the suite of 5128

requirements by summing over the regulations included in the regulatory option and adjusting 5129

for any common or additional labor and material costs. As with the individual requirements, this 5130

is done for the proposed requirements and for the baseline accounting for state requirements that 5131

may be more stringent than the current federal standard. Actors, again, are the various 5132

establishments, i.e. , farms and commercial pesticide handling establishments, and their 5133

employees. 5134

5135

Step 1. Calculate the expected cost per actor by summing over all the proposed requirements 5136

within a protective category adjust ing the cost to accounting for duplicate or additional costs. 5137

5138

5139

where cost R, a X

t is the expected annual cost for the proposed requirements in protective category 5140

R = training, notification, age, entry, PPE, emergency preparedness, and decontamination supply. 5141

A ll other variables are as previously identified. The superscript X designates P, proposed, and B, 5142

baseline, and s ∈ r indicates that the activity or material required in regulation s is also an element 5143

in regulation r , which duplicates or adds to the costs in r . Duplicate costs arise when different 5144

regulations require the same activity or material, e.g. , a document or a sign. Additional costs 5145

arise if different regulations increase costs in different ways, e.g. , requiring more information in 5146

one regulation and more frequent dissemination in another. 5147

5148139 Step 2. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and proposal by multiplying the adjusted 5149

per

- actor costs by the number of actors in a region and summing across actors. 5150

5151

5152

for X = P and B. National level compliance costs may be estimated by summing across regions. 5153

5154

5155

Step 3. Calculate the present value (PV) of regional costs for the baseline and proposal. As with 5156

the individual requirements, we use a ten

- year time horizon. 5157

5158

5159

5160

Step 4

. Calculate regional level incremental costs. 5161

5162

5163

National incremental cost, PV ( NIC R ), is calculated the same way. 5164

5165

Step 5

. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the proposed requirements. 5166

5167

5168

where AIC R is the annualized incremental cost at the national level and all other variables are as 5169

previously defined. 5170

5171

Step 6

. Sum across protective categories to obtain the incremental cost for the proposed rule. 5172

5173

5174

Again, this is done for national level cost, as well as for annualized costs. 5175

5176

Step 7

. Obtain per

- entity baseline and proposal costs by multiplying the cost per actor by the 5177

number of actors in each entity and summing across the actors that comprise a particular kind of 5178

entity. 5179

5180140 5181

where EC R,e X is entity cost, N

a

, e is the number of actors per entity, and other variables are as 5182

previously defined. An entity is an establishment, primarily a WPS farm, of a certain size 5183

category, based on SBA criteria. The actors within an entity include the establishment an d the 5184

workers, by type, in its employ. We then calculate the PV of costs over a ten

- year time horizon, 5185

assuming that the number of workers will not change for a specific entity. Finally, we annualize 5186

the NPV to arrive at a cost per year. This has the ef fect of spreading the cost of any required 5187

investments across the time horizon as a business would in making a capital investment. 5188

5189

Step 8

. Incremental cost per entity is simply the difference between the cost of the baseline 5190

regulations and the cost of t he regulations in the proposal, summed over the protective 5191

categories. 5192

5193

5194

For the purpose of the per

- entity analysis, EPA requested a special tabulation from the 2007 5195

Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b). We obtained information on the average number of 5196

workers employed by various types and sizes of operations. Size is based on annual revenues, 5197

where a small farm makes less than $750,000 in gross sales and a small feedlot makes less than 5198

$2.5 million in gross sales. This corresponds to the SBA definition of small business for the 5199

agricultural sector (SBA, 2008). Table 5.1

- 1 presents the characteristics used for the per

- entity 5200

analysis. 5201

5202

Table 5.1

- 1. Average Number of Workers and Handlers per WPS Farm by Farm Size

. 5203

F arm Size 1 Annual Revenue Workers Handlers

Large ≥ $750,000 2 0.0 2

Small < $750,000 3.6 0.4 1

Large

- Small ≥ $100,000 and < $750,000 4.7 1

Medium

- Small ≥ $10,000 and < $100,000 3. 2 0

Small

- Small < $10,000 2. 5 0

1 Feedlots are considered large if annual revenue is more than $2.5 million. EPA divides small feedlots 5204

into large

- small entities with annual revenue between $500,000 and $2.5 million, medium

- small 5205

entities with annual revenue between $50,000 and $500,000, and small

- small entities with annual 5206

re venue less than $50,000. 5207

5208

Large WPS farms employ a substantially greater number of workers than do small farms. This 5209

distinction holds for nearly all types of farms, except for farms producing oilseeds and grains 5210

where even large farms employ, on average, fewer than five workers. Greenhouses employ the 5211

largest number of workers. Vegetable, fruit, and nut producers and nurseries also employ a large 5212

number of workers, although some are likely temporary workers employed at harvest or for 5213

certain seasons. T emporary workers also likely explain how small

- small farms, with annual 5214

sales of less than $10,000, still employ between two and three workers, on average. Certain 5215141 provisions, especially the notification requirements, only apply if the worker is on the 5216

es tablishment during application, REI, or within 30 days of expiration of the REI. 5217

5218

EPA has no data on the number of workers who also handle pesticides, but assume that large 5219

farms employ two handlers on average while the largest small farm employ one. Thro ughout 5220

this analysis we have assumed that a WPS farm makes, on average, 20 pesticide applications per 5221

year. Most, but not all, would occur during the growing season. This assumption implies that 5222

applications are made slightly less than once per week, on average. It seems reasonable that one 5223

or two handlers could make or assist in this number of applications, especially as the employer is 5224

likely to be an applicator and as commercial applicators are likely to be hired for applications of 5225

some of the more h azardous pesticides such as soil fumigants. 5226

5227



### 5.2 Cost Estimation 5228

5229

This section presents the estimation and results of the cost analysis. We begin with a fairly 5230

detailed presentation of the estimation of the training component. The results of other 5231

components are presented in more summary fashion. Details of the estimation can be found in 5232

Appendix B. 5233

5234



### 5.2 .1 Training Component 5235

5236

As an example, we explain the estimation of costs associated with training requirements in some 5237

detail. 5238

5239

The proposed change s to the training requirements consist of several options pertaining to 5240

worker training: TRAIN

- 0 2 , Elimination of the grace period before training with exceptions ; 5241

TRAIN

- 0 3 , Annual worker training; TRAIN

- 0 6 , Expanded worker training content (increased 5242

dur ation of 15 minutes); TRAIN

- 08 , Stricter requirements f or worker trainers; and TRAIN

- 10

, 5243

Record keeping for two years . It also includes several options pertainin g to handler training: 5244

TRAIN

- 12 , Annual handler training; TRAIN

- 1 4 , Expanded handler training content (increased 5245

duration of 15 minutes); and TRAIN

- 16 , Record keeping for two years . EPA is also proposing 5246

to require employers to provide verification of training

, i.e. , a copy of the training register, to 5247

their employees , TRAIN

- 20

. 5248

5249

Step 1. Calcula te the cost per actor by summing over all the proposed requirements within a 5250

protective category adjusting the cost to accounting for duplicate or additional costs. 5251

5252

5253

for X = proposed and baseline. 5254

5255

Table 5 .2

- 1 presents the baseline unit costs for establishments for the proposed training 5256

regulations for all regions except California. To better understand the distribution of impacts 5257142 across farms, we mod ify the baseline for TRAIN

- 03, Annual Training, along the lines of that 5258

shown in Appendix A, Table A.1.a

- 21. Otherwise , there are clearly common baselines for the 5259

differing worker training and handler training elements. The proposed requirements merely 5260

e xtend current practices in different ways, e.g. , in the content, which determines the duration of 5261

the training, and in the frequency with w hich workers are trained. TRAIN

- 0 2 , 0 3 , 0 6 , and 0 8 all 5262

represent the same baseline for WPS establishments, which ent ail the provision of worker 5263

training. Thus, the baseline costs for the last three proposed requirements are subtracted from 5264

the total. Similarly, T RAIN

- 12 and 1 4 represent the baseline cost for trainers of pesticide 5265

h andlers and the cost of TRAIN

- 14 is s imply subtracted from the total. 5266

5267

Table 5 .2

- 1 . Baseline Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 5268

( WPS Farm s), Year 1 5269

Re quirement Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm Other Small

WPS Farms CPHE

TRAIN

- 02 15.2 9 15.2 9 15.2 9 0.00

TRAIN

- 03 3 6.15 1 1.97 1 1.97 0.00

TRAIN

- 06 15.2 9 15.2 9 15.2 9 0.00

TRAIN

- 08 15.2 9 15.2 9 15.2 9 0.00

TRAIN

- 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TRAIN

- 12 12.02 5.63 0.00 24.09

TRAIN

- 14 12.02 5.63 0.00 24.09

TRAIN

- 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TRAIN

- 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sum 10 6.06 6 9.10 5 7.84 48.18

Duplicate Costs

TRAIN

- 0 2 , 0 6 , 0 8

duplicate TRAIN

- 0 3 45. 87 45. 87 45. 87 0.00

TRAIN

- 1 4 duplicate

of TRAIN

- 12 12.02 5.63 0.00 24.09

cost TRAIN,a B 48.17 1 7.60 1 1.97 24.09

cost TRAIN,a B

Cal 81.1 4 3 5.71 1 7.95 44. 70

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5270

5271

The last row of Table 5.2

- 1 present s the total for the California baseline. California already 5272

requires an extended training for both workers and handlers, hence the baseline is based on the 5273

cost of proposed requirements. California also requires records t o be kept for handler training. 5274

S ee Appendix B.1

. 5275

5276

Table 5 .2

- 2 presents the baseline costs pertaining to WPS and CPHE employees. For simplicity, 5277

we present the common baseline for multiple require ments, rather than repeat them. The main 5278

difference between regions is participation in the voluntary training verification program 5279

(TRAIN

- 18) and the extended training required in California. 5280

5281

Table 5 .2

- 2 . Baseline Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 5282

(Employees) 5283143 Re quirement WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE Handler

South, Southwest

TRAIN

- 0 2 , 0 3 , 0 6 , 0 8 3.40 0.00 0.00

TRAIN

- 12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94

TRAIN

- 20 0.53 0.35 0.37

cost TRAIN,a B 3.92 5.48 5.32

California

TRAIN

- 0 2 , 0 3 , 0 6 , 0 8 5.04 0.00 0.00

TRAIN

- 12, 14 0.00 20.83 20.10

TRAIN

- 16 0.00 0.56 0.57

TRAIN

- 20 0.53 1.08 1.13

cost TRAIN,a B 5.56 22.46 21.80

Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest

TRAIN

- 0 2 , 0 3 , 0 6 , 0 8 3.40 0.00 0.00

TRAIN

- 12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94

TRAIN

- 20 0.26 0.26 0.28

cost TRAIN,a B 3.66 5.39 5.22

Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West

TRAIN

- 0 2 , 0 3 , 0 6 , 0 8 3.40 0.00 0.00

TRAIN

- 12, 14 0.00 5.12 4.94

TRAIN

- 20 0.00 0.00 0.00

cost TRAIN,a B 3.40 5.12 4.94

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5284

5285

The same process applies to the cost of complying with the proposed regulations, although for 5286

ease, EPA firsts re

- estimates the per

- actor cost for work er training, covered by TRAIN

- 02 , 0 3

, 5287

0 6, and 08 , and for handler training covered by TRAIN

- 12 and 1 4 . The proposed worker 5288

training requirements include immediate training with limite d exceptions

, annual training, 5289

increase d training content (duration), and heightened standard for train ers . Because of the 5290

requirement for annual training and reduced flexibility to delay the training of newly hired 5291

employees , EPA assumes that a large WPS farm will conduct an average of 3. 3 trainings per 5292

year , in lieu of 2.4 session s in the baseline , and a small WPS farm will conduct an average of 5293

1. 2 1 trai nings per year, up from 0. 8 sessions in the baseline

. As for TRAIN

- 08 individually, 5294

EPA assumes th at 8 5 percent of worker trainings will be conducted by a trainer of handlers and 5295

1 5 percent by people who have completed a Train

- the

- Trainer program. These percentages are 5296

multiplied by the average number of trainings per year to obtain the annual frequency or 5297

probability that a given training will be conducted by one of the two required trainers. The per

5298

farm cost for the revised worker training is estimate d to be about $9 5 per year for large farms 5299

and $3 4 per year for small farms (Table 5 .2

- 3 ). Record keeping costs, TRAIN

- 10, are similarly 5300

adjusted to account for the different number of training sessions across different farm sizes. 5301

5302144 Table 5 .2

- 3 . Per

- WPS farm Costs for proposed worker training requirements

. 5303

Action/Material wage/price unit

time/quantity probability cost

Large WPS Farm

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 45 min 2. 827 $ 80.31

Training by Train

- the

Trainer $ 37.87 /hr 45 min 0. 4 99 $ 1 4.17

cost TRAIN ,a

P $ 94.48

Small WPS Farm

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 45 min 1.028 $ 2 9.19

Training by Train

- the

Trainer $ 37.87 /hr 45 min 0.1 81 $ 5.15

cost TRAIN ,a

P $ 3 4.34

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5304

5305

The per

- worker unit cost is similarly estimated to be $9.43

, as shown in Table 5.2

- 4. 5306

C onsidering the expanded content and annual training requirement

, workers will spend 45 5307

minutes of time in training every year. EP A estimates that 90.3 percent of workers will be 5308

trained each year, accounting for returning handlers and those who fall under the exception to 5309

immediate training and leave employment after two days or less. In addition, EPA assumes that 5310

about five percen t of workers will fall under the exception, although most will receive full 5311

training within a couple of days. Those not immediately trained will receive written and oral 5312

safety information, most likely from the owner/operator, on an individual basis. 5313

5314

Tab le 5 .2

- 4 . Per

- worker Costs for proposed worker training requirements

. 5315

Action/Material wage/price unit

time/quantity probability cost

Full Training Session $ 1 3. 43 /hr 45 min 0.903 9.09

Receive Safety Information

(delayed training) $13.43/hr 10 min 0.048 0.11

Provide Safety Information $28.21/hr 10 min 0.048 0.23

Written Information 0.09/page 1 page 0.048 0.00

cost TRAIN ,a

P $ 9.43

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5316

5317

Similarly, the combined handler training revisions increase the content and frequency of the 5318

trainings. The combined costs are shown in Table 5 .2

- 5 for WPS farms, depending on size. As 5319

noted in Chapter 3 .3 , the training cost borne by the establishment will depend on the number of 5320

handlers employed. The probability that a WPS farm holds a training session will increase in 5321

comparison to the baseline, but there will be some sharing of resources. Thus, EPA assumes that 5322

there will be four handler trainings for every five large WPS farms and one handler training for 5323

every two large

- small WPS farms. The annual frequency of training is then weighted by the 5324

probability the training is led by a particular category of trainer, which is unchanged from the 5325

baseline. 5326

5327145 Table 5 .2

- 5 . Per

- Esta blishment Costs for proposed handler training. 5328

Action/Material wage/price unit

time/quantity probability cost

Large WPS Establishments

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.112 $ 4.24

Training by Train

- the

Trainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.080 $ 3.03

Training by Certified

Applicator $28.21/hr 1 hour 0.6 08 $17.15

cost r,a P $24.43

Large

- small Establishments

Training by handler trainer $37.87/hr 1 hour 0.07 0 $ 2.65

Training by Train

- the

Trainer $ 37.87 /hr 1 hour 0.050 $ 1.89

Training by Certified

Applicator $28.21/hr 1 hour 0.380 $ 10.72

cost r,a P $ 15.27

Source: EPA estimation. See text for data sources. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5329

5330

The combined effect of the handler training will result in per

- firm costs of $ 41.75 for CPHEs

, 5331

assuming the firms conduct 1.3 trainings per year, on average . The per

- handler unit costs are 5332

estimated to be $20.83 for WPS handlers and $20.10 for CPHE handlers , which is simply the 5333

wage for one hour spent in training

. 5334

5335

Table 5 .2

- 6 presents the per

- establishment unit costs and their sum, given the new unit costs 5336

estimated for the combined worker training requirements and the combined handler training 5337

requirements. 5338

5339

Table 5 .2

- 6. Regulatory Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 5340

(Establishments) 5341

Regulation Large WPS

Farm Large

- Small

WPS Farm Other Small

WPS Farms CPHE

T RAIN

- 02 , 0 3 , 0 6 , 0 8 94.48 3 4.34 3 4.34 0.00

T RAIN

- 10 1 1.45 4. 29 4. 29 0.00

T RAIN

- 12 , 1 4 24.43 15.27 0.00 41.75

T RAIN

- 16 2. 49 2. 49 0.00 2.65

T RAIN

- 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

cost TRAIN,a P 1 32.84 5 6.38 3 8.63 44.40

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5342

5343

Finally, Table 5 .2

- 7 presents the compliance costs per employee for the proposed requirements. 5344

Compared to the individual requirements, higher costs for record keeping arise because more 5345

frequent trainings are required by T RAIN

- 0 3 for workers and T RAIN

- 1 0 for handlers. 5346

5347146 T able 5 .2

- 7. Regulatory Costs for Training Regulations in the Proposed Option, by Actor 5348

(Employees) 5349

Regulation WPS Worker WPS Handler CPHE Handler

T RAIN

- 02 , 0 3 , 0 6 , 0 8 9.43 0.00 0.00

T RAIN

- 10 0.13 0.00 0.00

T RAIN

- 12 , 1 4 0.00 20.83 20.10

T RAIN

- 16 0.00 0.56 0.57

T RAIN

- 20 0.37 0.34 0.36

cost TRAIN,a P 9.93 21.73 21.03

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5350

5351

Th e s e estimate s are for immediate implementation of all requirements . Some elements will be 5352

delayed to allow for the development of new training material and so that sufficient qualified 5353

trainers can be trained. For simplicity, rather than develop estimates for each year during the 5354

implementation period that account for all interactions , we evaluate the costs given imme diate 5355

implementation of all requirements and then given a two

- year delay in the implementation of all 5356

requirements. The true estimate will lie in between these bounds. 5357

5358

These estimates also assume that all WPS farms provide workers with training whether o r not a 5359

pesticide application is made. That is, EPA assumes that WPS farms find it more cost

- effective 5360

to prepare workers in advance rather than attempt to bring everyone into compliance at the 5361

moment a pesticide application is made. As a sensitivity ana lysis, we consider two alternative 5362

scenarios. In the first, the WPS farm, as a cost

- minimizing agent, will delay training until a 5363

pesticide application is necessary, thus saving the cost of training if pesticides are not needed 5364

during the year. This invo lves adjusting the probabilities used to estimate the expected cost to 5365

account for the farms that hire labor but do not apply pesticides. In the second alternative, we 5366

assume that WPS farms could delay training in the baseline, but that under the proposal

, 5367

especially the stricter requirements for immediate training and on trainer qualifications, delaying 5368

training may prove costly because workers cannot be brought into compliance with sufficient 5369

speed. Under this scenario, only the probabilities in the bas eline are adjusted to account for 5370

farms that hire labor but do not apply pesticides. As explained later, the cost estimates are 5371

similar across these three scenarios. 5372

5373

Step 2. Estimate regional level costs for the baseline and proposal by multiplying the adjusted 5374

per

- actor costs by the number of actors in a region and summing across actors. 5375

5376

5377

for X = P and B. 5378

5379

Table 5 .2

- 8 presents this calculation for the baseline. Costs per actor are given in the row 5380

immediately below the region(s) followed by the number of actors in each region. The sum of 5381

the products is given in the right

- hand column. EPA estimates that, nationally, current 5382

regulations cost about $1 8. 3 million annually. If training is provided only if a WPS farm uses 5383

pesticides, the national cost is estimated to be $15. 7 million annually. 5384147 5385

Table 5 .2

- 8. Regional Baseline Costs, by actor, for Year 1. (TRAIN only) 5386

Region Large

WPS

Farm Large

Small

WPS

Farm Other

Small

WPS

Farms CPHE WPS

Worker WPS

Handler CPHE

Handler

RC Ri B

1 ($1,000)

South, Southwest

cost TRAIN,a B $ 48.17 $ 1 7.60 $ 1 1.97 $24.09 $ 3.92 $ 5.48 $ 5.32

N a,South 8,089 20,746 29,969 416 2 74,068 36,924 2,545 $2, 414

N a,Southwest 1, 737 4,456 6,436 89 78,969 7,930 547 $ 5 97

California

cost TRAIN,a B $ 81.1 4 $ 3 5.71 $ 1 7.95 $44. 70 $ 5.56 $22.46 $21.80

N a,California 3,366 8,633 12,470 173 3 94,844 15,365 1,059 $3,3 78

Subtropical, Northeast, Northwest

cost TRAIN,a B $ 48.17 $ 1 7.60 $ 1 1.97 $24.09 $ 3.66 $ 5.39 $ 5.22

N a,Subtropical 1,357 3,481 5,028 70 111,485 6,195 427 $ 6 32

N a,Northeast 5,592 14,341 20,717 288 2 78,713 25,525 1,759 $1,9 43

N a,Northwest 3,149 8,076 11,666 162 346,069 14,373 991 $1,7 86

Midwest, Ohio Valley, Texas and Mountain West

cost TRAIN,a B $ 48.17 $ 1 7.60 $ 1 1.97 $24.09 $ 3.40 $ 5.12 $ 4.94

N a,Midwest 11,781 30,214 43,646 606 2 99,617 53,776 3,706 $2, 947

N a,Ohio Valley 12,541 32,164 46,461 645 353,037 57,245 3,945 $3, 253

N a,Texas 6,678 1 7,126 24,739 344 1 85,809 30,481 2,101 $1, 725

U.S. 54,289 139,237 201,132 2,793 2,322,610 247,815 17,080 $ 1 8, 675

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5387

5388

Table 5 .2

- 9 presents the estimates of regional costs under the proposed training regulations. 5389

Summing the per

- farm/firm and per

- employee costs results in an estimate of $ 5 0.9 million 5390

dollars for the first year, assuming full implementation and all WPS farms conducting training

. 5391

If WPS farms can delay training until necessitated by a pesticide application, the cost is 5392

esti mated to be $43. 4 million. 5393

5394148 Table 5 .2

- 9. Regulatory Costs, by actor, for Year 1. (TRAIN only) 5395

Large

WPS

Farm Large

Small

WPS

Farm Other

Small

WPS

Farms CPHE WPS

Worker WPS

Handler CPHE

Handler

UC

o P

a $ 1 32.84 $ 5 6.38 $ 3 8.63 $44.40 $9.9 3 $21. 7 3 $2 1.03 RC oi P

t=1 ($1,000) Region N i a t

South 8,089 20,746 29,969 416 274,068 36,924 2,545 $ 6, 997

California 3,366 8,633 12,470 173 394,844 15,365 1,059 $ 5, 700

Southwest 1,737 4,456 6,436 89 78,969 7,930 547 $ 1, 702

Subtropical 1,357 3,481 5,028 70 111,485 6,195 427 $ 1,8 24

Midwest 11,781 30,214 43,646 606 299,617 53,776 3,706 $ 9, 203

Northeast 5,592 14,341 20,717 288 278,713 25,525 1,759 $ 5, 723

Ohio

Valley 12,541 32,164 46,461 645 353,037 57,245 3,945 $ 10,135

Texas/Mt

West 6,678 17,126 24,739 344 185,809 30,481 2,101 $ 5, 375

Northwest 3,149 8,076 11,666 162 346,069 14,373 991 $ 5, 101

U.S. 54,289 139,237 201,132 2,793 2,322,610 247,815 17,080 $5 1,761

Source: EPA estimates. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 5396

5397

Step 3. Calculate the PV of regional costs for the baseline and proposal. 5398

5399

5400

Costs may vary over time because a few requirements will not be implemented immediately. As 5401

noted above, for simplicity we estimate upper a nd lower bounds, where the upper bound assumes 5402

all requirements are implemented immediately and the lower bound assumes all requirements are 5403

delayed two years. Further, the number of entities and workers is expected to change over time, 5404

as discussed in Ch apter 3.3.2. 5405

5406

Table 5 .2

- 10 presents the PV of regional costs for the baselines and for compliance with the 5407

proposed package of training regulations. Over ten years, the PV of the national cost in the 5408

baseline is estimated to be about $15 3 million and the estimate for the proposed requirements is 5409

$4 25 million

. 5410

5411149 Table 5 .2

- 10. PV of Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. (TRAIN 5412

only) 5413

Region PV( RC

o P

i ) PV( RC

o B

i ) PV( RIC o i ) Annual RIC

($1,000)

South 58,725 20,185 38,540 4,386

California 46,821 27,828 18,993 2,162

Southwest 14,215 4,968 9,247 1,052

Subtropical 15,075 5,208 9,867 1,123

Midwest 77,592 24,823 52,769 6,006

Northeast 47,711 16,153 31,557 3,592

Ohio Valley 85,315 27,353 57,962 6,597

Texas/Mountain West 45,254 14,506 30,749 3,500

Northwest 41,943 14,651 27,292 3,106

National 4 32,652 15 5,675 27 6,976 31, 524

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 5414

5415

Step 4. Calculate regional level incremental costs. 5416

5417

5418

The final two columns of Table 5 .2

- 10 present the expected regional level incremental costs, i.e.

, 5419

the difference between the cost of the proposed rule and the baseline costs for the training 5420

components. Regio nal costs range from a low o f $9. 2 million over 10 years for the Southwest, 5421

which consists of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and the Cheyenne Riv er Sioux, Rosebud 5422

Sioux, and Og lala Sioux Tribes and the Three Affiliated Tribes, to a high of $ 5 8.0 million in the 5423

Ohio Valley, consisting of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and 5424

Wisconsin. The primary reason for the regional variation is the differing number of farm and 5425

commercial pesticide operations and differing numbers of ag ricultural workers and pesticide 5426

handlers. The exception is California, which incurs relatively low incremental costs because its 5427

training standards are higher than current federal requirements

. 5428

5429

Step 5. Calculate the annualized incremental cost of the proposed requirements. 5430

5431

5432

where AIC R is the annualized incremental cost at the national level and all other variables are as 5433

previously defined. 5434

5435

T he right

- hand column of Table 5 .2

- 10 shows regional and national annualized incremental 5436

costs. For the training requirements, the proposed regulations are expected to cost the 5437

agricultural industry between $2 4.1 and $ 31. 5 million annually, given a 3% discount rate . T he 5438

range stems from the implementation schedule, where some requirements will be phased in over 5439

two years. For reference, the sum of the incremental costs estimated in Chapter 3 is $22.2 5440

million per year. 5441150 5442

The assumption that all WPS farms conduct trainin g before determining that a pesticide 5443

application is necessary does not have a major effect on the estimated cost of the proposed 5444

revisions. If WPS farms only conduct training when necessary, the incremental cost is estimated 5445

to be between $20. 5 and $26. 7 million, given that some requirements will be phased in over two 5446

years. If WPS farms are currently able to wait until a pesticide application is needed but will not 5447

risk delays under the proposal, the incremental cost may fall between $2 6. 7 and $3 4.1 mil lion 5448

per year. The ranges of cost under alternative assumptions overlap the range of EPA’s best 5449

estimate. 5450

5451

Step 6. Sum across protective categories to obtain the incremental cost for the proposed rule. 5452

5453

5454

This step will be d one after estimating the costs of the proposed requirements in the other 5455

categories. 5456

5457

Step 7. Obtain per

- entity baseline and proposal costs by multiplying the cost per actor by the 5458

number of actors in each entity and summing across the actors that compris e a particular kind of 5459

entity. 5460

5461

5462

Initially, we will simply examine regional variation in cost

- per

- entity for farms in general, 5463

distinguishing between large and small farms. Large farms are defined as those with annual 5464

sales of more than $750,000 or feedlots with annual sales of more than $2.5 million . In Section 5465

5.4 , we will examine the impacts on small farms more closely. 5466

5467

Step 8. We calculate the PV of per

- entity costs before taking the difference between the baseline 5468

and proposed scenarios to determine the incremental cost per farm or firm. There are no data to 5469

indicate whether the number of employees per farm is changing over time and we assume it is 5470

constant for an individual farm. Large farms are assumed to employ two handlers and, according 5471

to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), large farms employ 20.0 workers, 5472

on average. Small farms employ 3.6 workers, on average (NASS, 2008b). Small farms also 5473

employ an average of 0.41 handlers, b ased on the assumption that large

- small farms employ one 5474

and other small farms employ none. 5475

5476

Incremental cost per entity is simply the difference between the cost of the baseline regulations 5477

and the cost of the regulations in the proposal, summed over the protective categories. 5478

5479

5480151 Table 5 .2

- 11 presents the annual ized per

- entity costs associated with the training requirements 5481

for the average large WPS farm, with 20 workers, and the average small farm, with 3.6 workers

. 5482

California is the only region that varies significantly from the other regions. The incremental 5483

cost per establishment, assuming immediate implementation, is shown in the final column. If all 5484

requirements were delayed two years, the annualized incremental costs would be about $ 200 per 5485

year for large farms and $ 55 for small farms. The annualized c ost to CHPEs would be around 5486

$84

. 5487

5488

Table 5 .2

- 11. Annual Per

- Ent ity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs

- All Sectors. 5489

(TRAIN only) 5490

Farm size/ Region EC

o P

i EC

o B

i EIC o i ($)

LARGE WPS FARMS

California 3 7 5 2 37 1 3 7

All Other Regions 3 7 5 13 2 2 4 3

SMALL WPS FARMS

California 91 5 5 3 6

All Other Regions 91 30 6 1

CPHE 17 3 6 3 1 1 0

Source: EPA estimates using three percent discount rate

. 5491

5492



### 5. 2.2 Hazard Communication and Notification Component s 5493

5494

The rule changes that EPA is proposing include several requirements designed to improve 5495

information exchange (hazard communication and notification ) to employees and between WPS 5496

farms and CPHEs

. Proposed hazard communication requirements include making application 5497

information available (HAZCOM

- 01), augmenting the application information with copies of the 5498

label and SDS (HAZCOM

- 02), and maintaining a record of the information for two years 5499

(HAZCOM

- 05). General notification requirements are: NOTIFY

- 01, Post field warning signs 5500

if the REI is greater than 48 hours , NOTIFY

- 03, Allow oral notifi cation of greenhouse workers if 5501

the REI is four hours or less, NOTIFY

- 06 , Revise the content on warning signs ( phase d

- in over 5502

two years to allow farms to replace existing warning signs ), and NOTIFY

- 08, specify that 5503

warning signs must be posted if the treat ed field is within 100 feet of worker housing . For 5504

workers entering fields during the REI, revisions include NOTIFY

- 1 0, Provide additional 5505

information about the pesticide orally, and NOTIFY

- 1 2 , Keep records of information provided 5506

for two years. EPA is p roposing to revise the content of safety posters

, NOTIFY

- 1 4 , which will 5507

be phased in over two years. EPA is also proposing to require additional safety posters: 5508

NOTIFY

- 1 5 , additional safety poster at worker decontamination location and, in NOTIFY

- 1 6 , at 5509

handler decontamination locations. Finally, EPA is proposing to codify existing guidance as to 5510

when a CPHE must notify the WPS farm employer with information about a pesticide 5511

application, NOTIFY

- 18

. 5512

5513

These two components can be addressed separately becau se there are no overlapping 5514

requirements between the two or between the training requirements. O verlap only occurs 5515152 between elements within the component s, consisting, for example, of the same signs or posters 5516

adjusted for content and number in multiple requirements

. 5517

5518

W e present the results of the estimation. Details showing the calculations are available in 5519

Appendix B. 5520

5521

Hazard Communication 5522

5523

Table 5 .2

- 12 presents the annualized cost and the NPV of regional costs for the proposed and 5524

regional baselines for hazard communication requirements. All requirements are imposed 5525

immediately. The proposed revisions are expected to cost about $8.0 million per year, 5526

accounting for the cost savings from eliminating the central posting requirement (HAZCOM

- 01). 5527

On a regional basis, the states in the South and the Ohio Valley are expected to bear the majority 5528

of these costs, in part because of the large number of WPS farms in these regions. Costs are also 5529

somewhat lower in many other regions because representative sta tes already impose some of the 5530

requirements or require that SDS be available from pesticide distributors, which will facilitate 5531

compliance. Texas already meets the proposed requirements so farms there, and in states with 5532

similar regulations, may see a red uction in costs due the elimination of the central posting 5533

requirement. 5534

5535

Table 5 .2

- 12. PV of Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. 5536

( HAZCOM only) 5537

Region RC

o P

i RC

o B

i RIC o i Annual RIC

($1,000)

South 46,645 30,088 16,557 1,885

California 19,409 18,351 1,058 120

Southwest 10,018 6,462 3,556 405

Subtropical 7,826 7,092 735 84

Midwest 67,933 61,554 6,379 726

Northeast 32,245 20,799 11,446 1,303

Ohio Valley 72,316 46,646 25,670 2,922

Texas/Mountain West 38,506 40,083

- 1,577

- 180

Northwest 18,157 11,712 6,445 734

National 313,055 242,787 70,269 7,998

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 5538

5539

Table 5.2

- 13 presents the per

- entity costs of the hazard communication proposals and baseline. 5540

Several states have requirements that are similar to the proposals and the impacts will be small, 5541

ranging from negative in Texas to less than $10 per year in Florida and Iowa. Other regions may 5542

face higher incremental costs to obtain the required informa tion. EPA does not anticipate a 5543

distinct difference in costs between large and small farms. The cost of complying with the 5544

hazard communication requirements is a function of the number of different pesticide products 5545

used on a WPS farm, not the number of employees or revenue. However, small farms are less 5546

likely to use pesticides than are large farms, and thus the expected cost in any year is lower for 5547

small than for large farms. 5548

5549153 Table 5 .2

- 13. Annual Per

- Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs

- All Sectors. 5550

( HAZCOM only) 5551

Region EC

o P

i EC

o B

i EIC o i ($)

LARGE WPS FARMS

CA, Subtropics, Midwest,

TX/Mountain West 108 102 5

All Other Regions 108 6 9 3 8

SMALL WPS FARMS

CA, Subtropics, Midwest,

TX/Mountain West 90 85 4

All Other Regions 90 58 32

Source: EPA estimates. 5552

5553

Notification 5554

5555

The regional, incremental, and annualized costs of the proposed notification requirements are 5556

shown in Table 5.2

- 14. The estimated annual costs of $1 5.1 million are somewhat overestimated 5557

since some requirements will be phased in over a two

- year period. EPA also estimated costs if 5558

all requirements were phased in, which would somewhat underestimate the costs, at $11. 7 5559

million per year

. The simple sum of the proposed costs is $14.6 million per year. 5560

5561

Table 5 .2

- 1 4 . PV of Baseline and Proposed Regulatory Costs, Incremental Costs. (NOTIFY 5562

only) 5563

Region RC

o P

i RC

o B

i RIC o i Annual RIC

($1,000)

South 65,885 45,413 20,471 2,330

California 42,690 37,062 5,629 641

Southwest 15,244 11,050 4,194 477

Subtropical 14,618 11,843 2,774 316

Midwest 90,539 59,721 30,818 3,508

Northeast 50,400 37,149 13,251 1,508

Ohio Valley 98,234 65,772 32,462 3,695

Texas/Mountain

West 52,188 34,882 17,307 1,970

Northwest 38,669 33,114 5,555 632

National 468,466 336,006 1 32,460 1 5,076

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 5564

5565

The final two columns of Table 3.5

- 1 4 present the expected regional level incremental costs, the 5566

difference between the cost of the proposed rule and the baseline costs. The regional incremental 5567

costs are a function of the number of WPS farms and CPHEs in the region. 5568

5569

Results of the per

- enti ty analysis are shown in T able 5 .2

- 1 5 . Larg e WPS farms are relatively less 5570

impacted by the notification requirements than small WPS farms because they are presumed to 5571154 save on the costs of notifying workers of REIs by posting because it is more efficient t han orally 5572

informing each employee. The costs to small farms are relatively higher due to the increased 5573

posting requirements for REIs and for worker and handler safety displays. Costs may be 5574

overstated, however, because small farms may rely more on tempo rary workers who will not be 5575

on farm when some applications are made or during the REI and thus will have relatively fewer 5576

posting events over time. 5577

5578

Table 5 .2

- 1 5 . Annual Per

- Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs

- All Sectors. 5579

(NOTIFY only) 5580

Far m size EC

o P

i EC

o B

i EIC o i ($)

LARGE WPS FARMS 272 2 54 18

SMALL WPS FARMS 12 0 7 8 42

Source: EPA estimates. 5581

5582

Commercial applicators will see few impacts due to changes in the notification requirement s 5583

because revisions codify existing interpretations of applicable requirements

. 5584

5585



### 5. 2.3 Protect Component: Age, Entry, and PPE 5586

5587

The proposed rule includes several categories of regulations that are intended to better protect 5588

workers and handlers. EPA is proposing AGE

- 01, Minimum age of 1 6 for workers enterin g 5589

fields during the REI , and AGE

- 03, Minimum age of 1 6 for handlers. The proposed entry 5590

requirements consist of ENTRY

- 01, Expand the restricted area during application; ENTRY

- 02, 5591

Limit worker time in fields during the REI; ENTRY

- 03, Halt applications if w orkers enter the 5592

restricted area; and ENTRY

- 05, Codify exception to REIs. Regarding PPE, EPA is proposing 5593

PPE

- 01, Require respirator fit test; PPE

- 02, Eliminate exemptions for WPS employees acting as 5594

CCAs; PPE

- 03, Eliminate exemptions for employees of CCA s; PPE

- 04, Revising standards for 5595

closed mixing and loading systems , PPE

- 05, Simplifying enclosed cab substitutions for PPE, and 5596

PPE

- 06, Clarifying disposal of contaminated PPE

. 5597

5598

None of the requirements within these categories overlap with any other propo sed category of 5599

regulation. 5600

5601

Age 5602

5603

The two proposed age requirements do not interact with any other regulations. In this case, the 5604

regulatory costs can simply be summed. Table 5 .2

- 1 6 presents the NPV for the baseline and 5605

proposed costs. As explained in S ection 3.3.5, the impacts are estimated as an increase in labor 5606

co sts, not compliance costs

. 5607

5608155 Table 5 .2

- 1 6 . PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (AGE only) 5609

Region RC

o P

i RC

o B

i RIC o i Annual IC

($1,000) ($1,000)

South 7,568 6,788 780 89

California 4,447 3,948 498 57

Southwest 1,718 1,538 180 20

Subtropical 1,572 1,470 102 12

Midwest 10,561 9,487 1,074 122

Northeast 5,644 5,049 594 68

Ohio Valley 11,400 10,236 1,165 133

Texas/Mountain West 6,060 5,441 619 70

Northwest 4,052 3,600 452 51

National 53,023 47,558 5,465 622

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 5610

5611

The annual cost of the age restrictions on handlers and on workers involved in early entry events 5612

is estimated to be $ 620 ,000

. Annual per

- entity costs are provided in Table 5 .2

- 1 7

. CPHEs are 5613

not expected to be impacted because few commercial establishments would employ adolescents 5614

under 16 years of age to handl e pesticides. 5615

5616

Table 5 .2

- 1 7 . Annual Per

- Entity Baseline and Proposed Labor Costs, Incremental Costs. 5617

(AGE only) 5618

Region EC

o P

i EC

o B

i EIC o i ($)

LARGE FARMS 41.20 26.90 14.30

SMALL FARMS 7.95 6.90 1. 05

CPHE 470 470 0

Source: EPA estimates. 5619

5620

5621

5622

Entry 5623

5624

The proposed entry restrictions are largely definitional. As explained in Section 3.3.6, there are 5625

no measureable costs to the individual regulations. The total cost of the entry component is, 5626

therefore, also near zero. 5627

5628

PPE 5629

5630

There could be some overlap between reporting requirements in the PPE category, but the ef fect 5631

on costs is minimal . Table 5. 2

- 1 8 presents the summation of the PPE costs, over a ten

- year time 5632

horizon, at the regional and national level s

. Annually, the new PPE regulations are expected to 5633

cost the agricultural industry about $17.6 million

. 5634

5635156 Tabl e 5 .2

- 1 8 . PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (PPE only) 5636

Region RC

o P

i RC

o B

i RIC o i Annual IC

($1,000)

South 41,429 18,913 22,515 2,563

California 18,860 16,899 1,962 223

Southwest 11,284 6,073 5,211 593

Subtropical 6,775 3,025 3,750 427

Midwest 96,435 57,979 38,456 4,377

Northeast 42,680 24,896 17,784 2,024

Ohio Valley 69,585 33,886 35,700 4,063

Texas/Mountain West 34,791 16,099 18,692 2,127

Northwest 30,174 19,186 10,988 1,251

National 3 52,013 1 96,955 155,0 58 17,64 8

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 5637

5638

Table 5 .2

- 1 9 presents the per

- entity cost of the PPE requirements. The cost for small WPS farms 5639

represents the average cost over all small farms, including the med i um

- and small

- small WPS 5640

fa r ms that would generally not empl o y handlers. California’s requirements are similar to those 5641

proposed, with the exception of some record keeping, so costs to farms will be substantially 5642

lower than in other regions. CPHEs will bear some costs, primaril y to upgrade closed mixing 5643

and loading systems, with self

- employed commercial applicators facing a smaller incremental 5644

cost than enterprises with multiple employees. 5645

5646

Table 5 .2

- 1 9

. Annual Per

- Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (PPE only) 5647

Reg ion EC

o P

i EC

o B

i EIC o i ($)

LARGE FARMS

California 284 254 30

All Other Regions 281 163 118

SMALL FARMS

California 45 39 6

All Other Regions 49 19 30

CPHE , multiple handlers 656 574 82

CPHE (‘self

- employed’) 245 167 78

Source: EPA estimates. 5648

5649



### 5 .2

. 4 Mitigate Component: Decontamination Suppl ies and Emergency Assistance 5650157 5651

Certain provisions of the WPS are intended to reduce the effects of any accidental exposure that 5652

occurs. In terms of supplies, the proposed rule includes two requirements when workers enter a 5653

recently treated field: SUPPLY

- 01, Water requirements for routine decontamination , and 5654

SUPPLY

- 02, Water requirements for decontamination during early entry ( i.e. , if th e REI is still 5655

in effect). The proposal also includes two requirements for handlers: SUPPLY

- 03, Water 5656

requirements for routine decontamination , and SUPPL Y

- 05, Water flow requirement for 5657

eyeflushing

. EPA is also proposing to define “prompt” emergency ass istance to be 30 minutes 5658

for worker emergencies, EMERG

- 01, and handler emergencies, EMERG

- 0 3

. 5659

5660

There are no overlapping requirements for any of these regulations, so the total cost for each of 5661

these categories is the simple sum of the individual items. 5662

5663

Supply 5664

5665

The revisions to the requirements for supplies for routine and emergency decontamination 5666

largely codify existing guidance . However, one provision, SUPPLY

- 02, will increase the 5667

amount of water that must be made available to agricultural workers whe n entering a field under 5668

a REI . EPA estimates the costs to be about $2,500 annually , as shown in Table 5 .2

- 20

. 5669

5670

Table 5 .2

- 20 . PV of Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (SUPPLY only) 5671

Region RC

o P

i RC

o B

i RIC o i Annual IC

($1,000)

South 383 381 2.6 0.3

California 164 160 3.8 0.4

Southwest 83 82 0.8 0.1

Subtropical 65 64 1.1 0.1

Midwest 557 554 2.9 0.3

Northeast 266 264 2.7 0.3

Ohio Valley 593 590 3.4 0.4

Texas/Mountain West 316 314 1.8 0.2

Northwest 153 149 3.3 0.4

National 2,580 2,558 22 2.5

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 5672

5673

The per

- entity costs of these requirements are negligible . Table 5 .2

- 2 1 presents the estimated 5674

baseline and proposed costs per year. Costs are largely proportional to the number of employees. 5675

The per

- handler costs for the water flow requirement are negligible, as can be seen by the 5676

estimated incremental cost to a CPHE , bec ause running water is typically available at mixing and 5677

loading sites so that concentrated forms of pesticides can be diluted

. 5678

5679

Table 5 .2

- 2 1. Annual Per

- Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs. (SUPPLY 5680

only) 5681

Region EC

o P

i EC

o B

i EIC o i ($)158 LARGE FARMS

All Regions 2. 25 2. 20 0.0 2

SMALL FARMS

All Regions 0.4 6 0.4 5 0.01

CPHE 7.50 7.50 0.00

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. Rows may not sum due 5682

to rounding. 5683

5684

Emergency Assistance 5685

5686

The new regulations dealing with emergency assistance are all definitional in nature and EPA 5687

does not anticipate measureable impacts. See Section 3.3.8. 5688

5689



### 5. 2.5 Total Cost of Proposed Rule 5690

5691

Having accounted for the overlap between the individual components of the proposed rule, the 5692

total cost can be estimated by summing the costs of the eight components. Table 5 .2

- 2 2 presents 5693

the NPV of the baseline and proposed regulatory costs , assuming all elements are implemented 5694

immediately . Nationally, the proposed rule is es timated to increase the cost of complying with 5695

the worker protection standard by $ 6 36 million over a ten year time horizon, using a three 5696

percent discount rate and assuming all requirements are implemented immediately. The annual 5697

incremental cos t under this assumption is estimated to be about $ 7 2. 4 million. If implementation 5698

of all the training and notification requirements is delayed for 2 years

, the 10 year cost is 5699

estimated to be $ 5 44 million and the annual incremental cos t is estimated to be about $6 1.9 5700

million. With a seven percent discount rate, the annual incremental cost of the proposed 5701

regulations is estimated to be between $ 6 0 .1 and $ 7 3 .1 million. 5702

5703

Table 5 .2

- 2 2 . PV of Baseline and Proposed Costs, Incremental Costs. (Total) 5704

Region RC

o P

i RC

o B

i RIC o i Annual IC

($1,000)

South 2 29,461 1 30,594 98, 867 11, 253

California 13 6,051 10 7,908 2 8,143 3, 203

Southwest 5 4,559 3 2,171 22, 389 2,5 48

Subtropical 4 7,403 30,174 17, 229 1,9 61

Midwest 3 58,643 2 29,144 12 9,499 14, 739

Northeast 1 85,163 1 10,527 74, 636 8,4 95

Ohio Valley 3 53,557 200,596 15 2,962 17, 409

Texas/Mountain

West 1 83,883 11 8,093 65, 791 7,4 88

Northwest 13 6,588 8 5,853 50, 735 5,7 74

U.S. 1,6 85,308 1,045,058 6 40,250 7 2, 871

S ource: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. 5705

5706

Figure 5.2

- 1 shows the contribution of the eight categories of the proposed rule to the total 5707

incremental cost. The informational regulations, i.e. , the t raining , hazard communication, and 5708159 notification requirements, make up almost thr ee

- fourths of the total incremental costs. The 5709

protective regulations (minimum age, entry restrictions, and PPE requirements) make up most of 5710

the remaining cost , with the PPE requirements accounting for nearly one

- fourth of the total 5711

incremental cost. Th e requirements focused on mitigation are largely definitional in nature and 5712

contribute less than one percent of the cost. 5713

5714

Figure 5 .2

- 1. Contribution of components of the proposed W orker P rotection S tandard to 5715

total annualized incremental cost , $7 2. 9 million

. 5716

5717

5718

5719

Average per

- entity costs are presented in Table 5 .2

- 2 3 . As explained above, these costs are 5720

calculated by taking the per

- farm unit cost, given its size, and adding the per

- worker and handler 5721

costs, multiplying by the average number of workers and handlers given the type and size of the 5722

operation. Each regional baseline varies according to existing state regulations , but often o nly 5723

slightly. We present California and the Texas/Mountain West regions, where the per

- entity cost s 5724

are below the national average, and the regions where per

- entity cost is highest. The cost 5725

estimates assume that all requirements become effective immedia tely and that the WPS farms 5726

make pesticide applications every year over the ten year time horizon , which overstates the 5727

expected cost of the proposal. Incremental costs for large farms are expected to average just 5728

over $ 4 00 per year, ranging from an addit ional $ 200 per year in California to about $ 4 30 per 5729

year in states with a baseline similar to that of the Ohio Valley . Small farms are likely to face 5730

impacts of under $ 1 50 per year, on average, ranging from $ 9 0 per year in California to $ 1 70 per 5731

year in t he Ohio Valley. If implementation of all training and notification requirements is 5732

delayed for 2 years, the incremental costs are expected to average $ 3 45 for large farms and $ 13 0 5733

for small farms. In the next section, we will examine the impacts on small farms more closely. 5734

5735 

## Training

43% HazCom

11%

Notification

21%

Age

1% Entry

0% PPE

24%

Supply

0% Emergency

0% 

## Distribution of Total Incremental Cost

$24.1

- 31.5 million

$11.7

- 15.1 million

$620,000 $17.6 million

$2,500 $8.0 million160 Table 5 .2

- 23 . Annual Per

- Entity Baseline, Proposed and Incremental Costs by Region. 5736

(Total) 5737

Region EC

o P

i EC

o B

i EIC o i ($)

LARGE FARMS

California 1,080 880 2 10

Ohio Valley 1,080 650 4 30

Texas/Mountain West 1,080 680 400

National 1,080 670 4 10

SMALL FARMS

California 3 5 0 2 6 0 9 0

Ohio Valley 3 60 190 1 70

Texas/Mountain West 3 60 2 2 0 1 40

National 3 60 2 10 1 50

CPHE , multiple

handlers 1, 3 10 1, 120 190

CPHE (‘self

- employed’) 2 5 0 17 5 80

Source: EPA estimates. NPV calculated over 10 years using a 3% discount rate. Row calculations 5738

subject to rounding. 5739

5740

The incremental cost to CPHEs with multiple handlers is estimated to be between $ 170 and $ 190 5741

per year. The incremental cost for self

- employed c ommercial handlers is low because they will 5742

already meet the increased training requirements through the applicators certification process

. 5743

5744

Table 5.2

- 23 presents the incremental costs to the average farm in the nation if it were located in 5745

various regions , given those regions current regulations. Table 5.2

- 24 presents the costs to the 5746

average farm in each region, which considers how differences in workers per farm affect the 5747

results. These results indicate that typical farms in the Ohio Valley will be le ss impacted than is 5748

suggested by Table 5.2

- 23 because farms there have relatively fewer workers than do states like 5749

Florida, in the Subtropical Region, or Washington, in the Northwest. 5750

5751

Table 5 .2

- 24 . A verage Worker Per

- Farm and Incremental Costs by Region . (Total) 5752

Region Large WPS Farm Small WPS Farm

workers/farm EIC o i workers/farm EIC o i

South 15.8 3 90 2.9 160

California 54.8 3 60 10.0 9 0

Southwest 21.2 420 3.9 160

Subtropical 38.3 5 10 7.0 150

Midwest 11.9 3 50 2.2 1 40

Northeast 23.3 440 4.2 1 70

Ohio Valley 13.1 3 80 2.4 160

Texas/Mountain

West 13.0 3 40 2.4 12 0

Northwest 51.3 6 30 9.3 180

U.S. 20.0 390 3.6 1 50161 Source: EPA estimates. Row calculations subject to rounding. 5753

5754

A final way to consider the costs of the proposed revisions to the Worker Protection Standard is 5755

the cost per employee covered by the regulations. Considering the 2.3 million farm workers and 5756

17,000 CPHE handlers covered by the WPS, simple division of the total annual costs implies the 5757

average cost to be between $2 6

. 5 0 and $31. 20 per year per employee , including handlers 5758

employed at CPHEs

. 5759

5760

All estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty due to the lack of data regarding many 5761

current practices and the effect of the proposed requirements. EPA has made a number of 5762

assumptions based on experience by EPA staff in the field and on conversations with state 5763

regulators and other stakeholders. Many assumptions, because they apply to both the baseline 5764

and the proposed rule, will have little effect on the estimate of the in cremental cost. While 5765

assumptions a ttempt to re present the average or typical farm or CPHE , in practice EPA has 5766

tended to use values that are probably more indicative of high and frequent pesticide use than 5767

would be usual. As a result, the cost may be ov erestimated, but the magnitude of bias is 5768

unknown. 5769

5770



### 5.3 Impact on Jobs and Employment 5771

5772

EPA also calculate s the per

- employee cost of the proposed requirements. The marginal 5773

incremental cost per WPS farm wo rker (not considering the costs incurred at the far m level) is 5774

estimated to be less than $5

. 00 per year, which would not be expected to have an impact on 5775

employment decisions . The main driver in this cost is the incremental cost of the training 5776

requirements, which are expected to cost about $ 5.50 per year . This is offset by a reduction in 5777

the per

- worker cost of the notification requirements of $ 1

. 20 per year as greater emphasis is 5778

placed on posting REI information. Age restrictions will, on average, add less than $0. 10 per 5779

year to the cost of employment. We estimate the supply requirements to cost under $0. 01 per 5780

year. Table 5 .3

- 1 presents this information. 5781

5782

Table 5 .3

- 1 . Annualized Per

- Employee Cost of Proposed Requirements 5783

Category Worker Handler CPHE Handler

Training 5. 48 1 5.11 1 5.03

Hazard Communication 0.00 0.00 0.00

Notification

- 1. 15 0.00 0.00

Age 0. 07 1.88 0.00

Entry 0.00 0.00 0.00

PPE 0.00 42.27 0.00

Supply 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 4. 41 59.26 15.03

Source: EPA estimates. 5784

5785

The marginal incremental cost per WPS handler is higher than for workers, but i s still relatively 5786

minor. Proposed training requirements will add about $1 5. 1 0 per year to employment costs, but 5787

the main driver is the PPE category at $ 42.30 per year. Much of this is the result of the proposed 5788162 requirement for fit test ing respirators. The age restriction may add about $ 2.00 per year to 5789

employment costs by restricting farms from using lower

- wage adolescents to mix, load, and 5790

apply pesticides. The total incremental cost of employing a handler could be around $ 6 0 per 5791

yea r, assuming the average baseline standards. We estimate that the cost to employers of a 5792

handler is $20.83 per hour including wages and other costs. At eight hours per day and assuming 5793

only 150 days of employment, a handler would cost about $25,000 per ye ar. An increase in cost 5794

of $ 6 0 per year represents about 0. 25 percent of the total cost, a marginal increase that would not 5795

be expected to have an impact on jobs. 5796

5797

The incremental cost per CPHE handler is estimated to be about $ 1 5 per year , all of which i s a 5798

result of increased training

. 5799

5800



### 5

. 4 Small Business Impacts 5801

5802

This section presents estimates of the impact the proposed changes to the WPS rule may have on 5803

small entities by examining the relationship between the compliance costs and revenue for small 5804

WPS farms and small commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHE). The rule should 5805

have no impact on other types of small entities, such as public institutions. 5806

5807

Due to the large number of small businesses in the agricultural sector, as shown in Sec tion 5.4 .1, 5808

and the high cost of some requirements under consideration, EPA convened a SBREFA panel in 5809

September 2008. The current analysis presented here takes into account comments received 5810

from the panel that influenced the proposed requirements. For example, the requirement for a 5811

sufficient flow rate at permanent mixing and loading sites was suggested by the panel as an 5812

alternative to a requirement for portable eyewash stations. Based on th e current analysis, EPA 5813

concludes that there will not be a s ignificant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5814

5815

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 5816

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires regulators to assess the effects of 5817

regulations on small entities, including businesses, non

- profit organizations, and governments. 5818

W hen significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities are expected, 5819

agencies are also required to examine regulatory alternatives that may reduce adverse economic 5820

effects on significantly impacted small entities. 5821

5822

T he RFA does not define the terms “significant” or “substantial” with regard to the extent of the 5823

economic impact and number of small entities affected. EPA has often characterized annual 5824

incremental compliance costs of three percent or more of annual sale s as significant , costs less 5825

than one percent of annual sales as not significant , and costs between one and three percent of 5826

sales as inconclusive . If costs are likely to be greater than one percent of annual sales, EPA 5827

considers both the number of affect ed firms and their proportion of all small firms to determine if 5828

a s ubstantial number of firms will be impacted. 5829

5830

Consistent with a previous analysis on the farm sector (Wyatt, 2008) , we use the following 5831

thresholds at which the number of impacted entities is not considered “substantial” : 5832

♦ Less than 100 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 5833

30% of all small farms; 5834163 ♦ Between 100 and 1,000 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents 5835

less than 20% of all small farms ; or 5836

♦ More than 1000 small farms may be affected, but the number represents less than 5837

10% of all small farms. 5838

If the estimated impacts exceed three percent, the thresholds at which EPA concludes a 5839

substantial number of small farms would not be affected are as follows: 5840

♦ Less than 100 small farms may be affected, provided the number represents less than 5841

20% of all small farms; 5842

♦ Between 100 and 1,000 may be affected, but account for less than 10% of all small 5843

farms; or 5844

♦ More than 1000 small farms may be affected, but the number represents less than 5% 5845

of all small farms. 5846

5847

Therefore, to determine the magnitude of any potential adverse impact, the annualized 5848

incremental costs on a per

- company basis is compared to the annual sales for small businesses to 5849

develop cost

- to

- sales ratios. 5850

5851

In the next section, we present the number and type of small entities in the agricultural sector. 5852

We focus on WPS farms because family farms face lower impacts for each size category. EPA 5853

estimates that small CPHEs will not face a sign ificant impact as a result of this rule. The 5854

estimated cost increase across all CPHEs, less than $ 200 per year, is only 0.1 0 percent of the 5855

average annual revenue for small CPHEs, $354,000 per year (D&B, 2010). 5856

5857

In Section 5.4 .2, we present the estimated compliance cost by type and size of WPS farms and 5858

estimate the incremental cost of the rule as a percentage of annual sales. Compliance costs are 5859

estimated assuming both immediate implementation of the proposal as well as a two

- year 5860

delayed implementation of the training and notification requirements

. 5861

5862



### 5.4 .1 Industry Profile 5863

5864

EPA uses data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b) to identify the number of 5865

small WPS farms affected by the modifications to the WPS rule. The Census of Agriculture is 5866

conducted every 5 years and is a count of U.S. farms and ranches as well as the people who 5867

operate them. The Census also examines land use and ownership, operator characteristics, 5868

production practices, income and expenditures and many other areas. 5869

5870

EPA r equested custom (special) tabulations from the 2007 Census to compile economic profiles 5871

for the agricultural sector covered by the WPS (farms, livestock operations producing crops, 5872

greenhouse s, and nurseries). Crop producing farms were then separated into two main size 5873

classifications (large and small) according to the SBA size definitions. Small farms are defined 5874

as those with annual gross reve nue less than $750,000 and small feedlots have less than $2.5 5875

million in annual sales. Table 5

. 4

- 1 presents the number of farms, by type, and the proportion of 5876

the total that are small farms. 5877

5878

Table 5.4

- 1

. Crop

- producing farms, by type and size , and average number of employees

. 5879

Farm Type Number of Small Farms 1 Average Number of Employees164 Farms (%) Large Farms Small Farms

All Crop Farms 1,564,178 95.7% 16.1 0.8

All Crop Farms using

pesticides 788,582 92.6% 17.6 1.4

WPS Farms 2 394,658 86.2% 20.0 3.6

WPS Farms 2 using

pesticides 304,348 83.9% 20.9 3.9

Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture ( NASS, 2008b). 5880

1 Farms with less than $750,000 in revenue. 5881

2 Crop farms, including nurseries and greenhouses, that hire labor. 5882

5883

The cultivation of most agricultural goods is burdened with various types and species of pests 5884

and efficient management of these pests is necessary for any successful agricultural enterprise. 5885

If pesticides (or some other effective means of pest control) a re not used, pest damage can 5886

jeopardize agriculture by reducing the amount of and quality of food produced. Similarly, labor 5887

remains an important input into crop production, despite mechanization. To better understand 5888

the impacts and the distribution of impacts on small farms, EPA subdivides small farms

, i.e.

, 5889

those with less than $750,000 in annual sales as defined by SBA, into three categories. We 5890

define ‘small

- small’ farms as those with annual sales of less than $10,000, medium

- small farms 5891

as those wi th annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000, and large

- small farms as those with 5892

annual sales between $100,000 and $750,000. Table 5.4

- 2 presents the number of farms , annual 5893

value of crops sold, and number of workers , by type and size

. These categories of farms provide 5894

the typology we use to characterize the impacts of revisions to the WPS on small farms

. 5895

5896

Table 5.4

- 2

. Average annual sales and workers, by Farm type and size. 5897

Type All Small 1 Large

- Small 1 Medium

- Small 1 Small

- Small 1

Farms Producing Crops

number 1,496,722 264,197 477,699 754,826

sales $ 66,277 $ 300,043 $ 36,680 $ 3,188

workers 0.8 2.5 0.8 0.3

Farms Using Pesticides

number 730,387 221,735 290,611 218,041

sales $ 109,865 $ 304,107 $ 41,208 $ 3,839

workers 1.4 2.7 1.1 0.5

WPS Farms 2

number 340,369 139,237 121,223 79,909

sales $ 152,986 $ 334,448 $ 42,733 $ 4,055

workers 3.6 4.7 3.2 2.5

WPS Farms 2 Using Pesticides

number 255,399 124,960 89,559 40,880

sales $181,742 $337,326 $45,587 $4,445

workers 3.9 4.7 3.4 2.7

Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture (2008b). 5898

1 The SBA defines small farms to be those with less than $750,000 in revenue. EPA defines three 5899

subgroups: large

- small farms, with annual sales of more than $100,000 and less than $750,000 per 5900165 year; medium

- small farms, with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000 per year; and small

5901

small farms, with annual sales less than $10,0 00 per year. Small feedlots are defined by the SBA as 5902

those with less than $2.5 million in revenue. EPA further divides small feedlots into large

- small 5903

feedlots, with annual sales between $500,000 and $2.5 million per year; medium

- small feedlots, with 5904

an nual sales between $50,000 and $500,000; and small

- small feedlots, with annual sales less than 5905

$50,000 per year. 5906

2 EPA defines WPS Farms to be those farms, including nurseries and greenhouses, that hire labor. 5907

WPS provisions, however, do not apply unless a pesticide application is made within a specified time 5908

and distance from where employees are working. 5909

5910

It is worth noting that small

- small WPS farms, defined as those reporting less than $10,000 in 5911

annual sales, also employ an average of nearly three labo rers. It is somewhat difficult to 5912

reconcile the low revenue with multiple employees. It may be that these employees are very 5913

temporary and are associated with a few tasks such as harvest that demand relatively high labor 5914

input over a short period of time

. It may also be that these e mployees are engaged in other 5915

revenue

- generating activities not directly related to the farm's own production

. 5916

5917



### 5.4 .2 Impacts of Incremental Compliance Cost 5918

5919

EPA estimates the incremental cost for the various WPS farm sizes ac cording to the 5920

methodology described in Section 5.1. Per

- entity unit cost is added to the per

- worker cost times 5921

the number of workers. Large

- small WPS farms are assumed to employ one handler , on average

, 5922

while medium

- small and small

- small WPS farms are a ssumed to rely on commercial applicators 5923

or the owner/operator to make pesticide applications. 5924

5925

Table 5.4

- 3 presents the number of WPS farms , average sales, and estimated annual incremental 5926

cost of the rule by farm size for all farm types. Annual incremen tal costs are based on existing 5927

requirements in most areas of the country except for California. As shown in Section 5 .2.5

, the 5928

incremental cost for a small WPS farm in California is substantially less than the national 5929

average due to the regulatory baseline even accounting for the relatively higher number of 5930

workers per farm

. Despite variation in the number of workers across the different regions of the 5931

United States , estimated incremental costs are fairly consistent with the Northwest region 5932

somewh at higher and the Texas / Mountain West region expected to have incremental costs per 5933

entity less than the national average. 5934

5935

EPA calculates the impact of the rule as the percent of sales revenue and does not find a 5936

significant impact from the rule . Overall , the impact of the rule is 0. 1 percent of average sales. 5937

Only the very smallest farms, with average sales of less than $4, 5 00 per year, may face impacts 5938

above one percent of sales. The number of entities that may be impacted in excess of one 5939

percent of sales could be over 4 0,000 , given the number of small

- small establishments. 5940

However, this is likely an overestimate of the number of farms impacted as includes the nearly 5941

5,000 small

- small farms in California that would face impacts well below the nationa l average. 5942

It also includes over 14,000 farms that are primarily livestock operations and over 13,000 farms 5943

that are primarily field crop and forage producers whose employees are unlikely to engage in 5944

hand labor activities that would trigger WPS provision s. These farms are likely to bear little or 5945

no cost as a result of the proposed revisions. 5946

5947166 Table 5.4

- 3 . Small Business Impacts, WPS Farm s making pesticide applications 5948

All Small WPS

Farms making

pesticide

applications Large

- Small

WPS Farms

making

pesti cide

applications Medium

- Small

WPS Farms

making

pesticide

applications Small

- Small

WPS Farms

making

pesticide

applications

Number 255,399 124,960 89,559 40,880

Average Sales $1 81,742 $3 37,326 $ 4 5,587 $ 4,445

Immediate Implementation

Incremental Cost $ 1 4 8 $ 2 3 2 $ 1 1 1 $ 8 2

Percent of Sales 0.1 % 0.1% 0. 2 % 1.8 %

Two

- Year Delayed Implementation 1

Incremental Cost $ 1 2 6 $ 2 0 2 $ 90 $ 6 7

Percent of Sales 0.1 % 0.1% 0. 2 % 1.5 %

Source: Special tabulation, 2007 Census of Agriculture ( NASS, 2008b); EPA calculations. 5949

1 Training and Notification only. 5950

5951

EPA examined the assumptions underlying the estimated cost to small

- small farms in order to 5952

gain a better understanding of the impacts the rule would have on them. There are likely two 5953

sources of overestimation in the estimated impacts on small

- small WPS farms. First, is whether 5954

WPS training requirements will apply to small

- small farms every year of a ten

- year time period, 5955

which is an underlying assumption of the analysis presented in Table 5.4

- 3. Less than 55 percent 5956

of small

- small WPS farms used pestic ides in 2007 (NASS, 2008b) and if these farms hire 5957

workers late in the season for harvest, they will only have to insure workers have received safety 5958

training if an application has been made

. Under this scenario , the incremental cost to small

5959

small WPS fa rms would average under $6 0 per year. 5960

5961

A second source of overestimation also stems from the assumption that small

- small farms 5962

employ workers on a permanent basis. In fact, it is likely that labor is employed on a temporary 5963

basis, such as for harvest, and WPS requirements will not be applicable for pesticide applications 5964

made well before wor kers are hired. For small

- small farms, the hazard communication and 5965

notification requirements comprise a large share of the cost at $ 40 per year, based on 20 5966

pesticide applications per year, as with the other categories of farms. It is likely that small

- small 5967

farms will make fewer applications per year when workers are or will be present and will thus 5968

have fewer occasions when they must generate information. If small

- small farms make only five 5969

applications per year for which hazard communication and not ification are required ( e.g. , in the 5970

30 days prior to hiring labor for harvest), the estimated incremental cost of the proposed rule is 5971

also less than $ 60 per year. If training is conducted only when pesticide applications have been 5972

made and only five app lications trigger the hazard communication and notification requirements

, 5973

the incremental cost of the rule for small

- small farms averages only $35 per year. 5974

5975

Given that, for small

- small WPS farms, annual incremental costs, particularly hazard 5976

communication and notification costs, are likely overestimated, EPA concludes that, even for the 5977

smallest WPS farms, the impacts of the proposed rule will generally be less than one percent of 5978

the value of annual sales of agricultural products

. 5979

5980167 

## Chapter 6. Benefits o f Proposed Rule 5981

5982

Occupational exposure to pesticides can result in both acute health e ffects to workers and 5983

handlers as well as health problems that occur later; if the proposed rule changes are 5984

implemented, agricultural workers and pesticide handlers will have better information and 5985

protection s that will enable them to reduce their occupational exposure to pesticides, leading to 5986

improved health and a better quality of life. EPA anticipates that the proposed changes will 5987

provide a range of benefits to agri cultural farm workers and handlers. The proposed rule 5988

changes would ensure that workers and handlers have the information needed to best protect 5989

themselves and their families from pesticide exposure. 5990

5991

By proposing several interrelated exposure

- reduction measures, the revised rule is expected to 5992

substantially mitigate for these workers and handlers the potential for adverse health effects 5993

(acute and chronic) from occupational exposures to such pesticides. These measures include 5994

requirements intended to red uce exposure by: 5995

• Ensuring that workers and handlers are informed about the hazards of pesticides

– The 5996

proposed rule changes the content and frequency of required training, as well as 5997

proposing changes to ensure that the training is more effective. 5998

• Reduc ing exposure to pesticides

– Among other things, the proposed rule changes and 5999

clarifies the requirements for personal protective equipment and changes when 6000

pesticides can be applied when people are nearby. These and other provisions should 6001

directly reduc e exposure to the agricultural workforce. 6002

• Mitigating the effects from exposures that occur

– Accidental exposures are inevitable, 6003

and the proposed rule increases safety by updating and clarifying what is needed to 6004

respond to exposures. 6005

6006

The remainder of this chapter will discuss the benefits of the proposed rule to agricultural 6007

workers, handlers and their families. Chapter 2 provided a summary of the individual proposals 6008

considered by the Agency in developing this rule. The preamble to the proposed r ule describes in 6009

detail the proposed requirements, and how they are expected to better inform workers about the 6010

risks and causes of pesticide exposure, protect them against exposure, and mitigate the effects of 6011

exposure

. This chapter discusses how these th ree approaches can reduce the health effects of 6012

exposure on workers and handlers, as well as the harmful effects that exposure can have. The 6013

proposed changes include proposals for improved training requirements, in terms of the 6014

frequency of training agric ultural workers receive, and the content of that training. Other 6015

proposed requirements summarized in Chapter 2, such as notification requirements, operate in 6016

combination with training to improve farmworkers’ and pesticide handlers’ ability to protect 6017

them selves. There is evidence that training can be an effective tool to increase workplace safety. 6018

Within agriculture, Barnett et al . (1984) found a pilot education project dramatically increased 6019

the understanding of routes of exposure, safer storage of pesticides, and a greater understanding 6020

of how to protect children from take home exposure. Both Strong et al . (2008) and Salvatore e t 6021

al . (2009) report better self

- protection practices after safety training for Hispanic farmworkers. 6022

6023168 

### 6.1. Which Benefits Can Be Quantified 6024

6025

EPA expects the proposed changes to the WPS to result in benefits by better protecting workers 6026

and handlers and providing them with additional information on ways they can protect their 6027

families. However, not all benefits from reduced pesticide exposure can be quantified. This 6028

section provides a brief overview of the estimated benefits that can be quantified (from reduced 6029

acute exposures to workers and handlers) and those that cannot. 6030

6031

Benefits from the proposed changes for this rule include reductions in adverse health effects by : 6032

• avoiding occupational pesticide incidents resul ting in acute pesticide exposure to farm 6033

workers and handlers

. 6034

• mitigating the severity of unavoidable occupational pesticide incidents through a 6035

better, faster, and more informed emergency response for farm workers and handlers. 6036

• avoiding and/or mitigating latent effects of occupational incidents ( e.g.

, 6037

developmental effects) to farm workers and handlers

. 6038

• reducing chronic pesticide exposure to farm workers

, handlers and their families

. 6039

6040

Some of t he quantified benefits in this chapter are based on preventable pesticide exposures that 6041

have been reported to databases that count poisoning incidents; these only represent a portion of 6042

the benefits that can result from avoiding acute incidents. Latent or delayed health effects, such 6043

as developmental effects resulti ng from acute exposures to pregnant women or to children and 6044

adolescents or health effects that result from repeated small exposures over time are unlikely to 6045

appear in pesticide poisoning surveillance databases, including the ones we use for developing 6046

th e benefit estimates in this chapter. 6047

6048

Also, provisions in the proposed rule are designed to clarify emergency response procedures and 6049

or the amount of decontamination supplies available. These provisions can reduce the severity 6050

of the accidental poisonin g events, and there is certainly a benefit to reduced illness severity. 6051

Because our estimates are based on preventable incidents, the benefits to reduced severity are 6052

underestimated. There is not enough available information to determine how much severit y 6053

would be reduced in a given incident. 6054

6055

The effects of longer term exposure and exposure to families, where the direct cause is unknown, 6056

are unlikely to be recorded. If they are reported, they may enter the database with uncertain 6057

causes, with little con fidence that the incidents are related to a specific pesticide. Therefore it is 6058

impossible to quantify many important health effects from reduced pesticide exposure. These 6059

health effects, which include those related to chronic pesticide exposure to worke rs and handlers 6060

will be discussed in a semi

- quantitative way. Effects of residues transported to the home are 6061

described, but cannot be quantified. 6062

6063

The next section discusses who is at risk from pesticide exposure, followed by a discussion of 6064

the effects of acute exposure to workers and handlers and acute and chronic exposures to their 6065

families. Section 6.5 estimates the benefits of reduced pesticide exposure to the extent these 6066

benefits can be quantified. Section 6.6 discusses the potential long

- term ef fects that may result 6067

from chronic pesticide exposure which, by their very nature

, are unlikely to be reported to 6068

surveillance databases, but are potentially very important to human health, and may be reduced 6069169 by the proposed rule. The final section of the chapter presents a break

- even analysis that shows 6070

some of the benefits that could be gained from reduction in chronic illness. 6071

6072



### 6.2. Who is at Risk? 6073

6074



### 6.2.1. Workers & Handlers in Agriculture 6075

6076

Pesticides of one type or another are used on the majority of farms in the United States, so a 6077

large portion of the agricultural workforce is potentially exposed. This includes the 6078

approximately 2.3 million farm workers (see Table 3.3

- 4 ) that are hired by agricultural 6079

establishments, all of whom are potentially exposed to the risks of adverse health effects from 6080

pesticide exposure (NASS

, 2008 b ). Agricultural workers do not necessarily handle pesticides 6081

directly, but they may be exposed to agricultural

- plant pesticides either through contact with 6082

residues on treated plants, soil, or water or through accidental contact from drift or misdirected 6083

application. EPA assumes there are nearly 250,000 pesticide handlers , included in the farm 6084

work er population, that handle pesticides directly ; another 7 2 ,000 handlers are employed at 6085

commercial pesticide handling establishments (D&B, 2010 , See Section 3.3.2 ). T he 6086

agricultural workforce as a whole is occupationally exposed to pesticides and pestic ide residues 6087

and that exposure can pose significant long and short term health risks. It is difficult to quantify 6088

a specific level of risk and project the risk reduction that will result from this rule, because 6089

workers and handlers are potentially expose d to a wide range of pesticides with different 6090

toxicities and risks and are exposed for widely ranging durations and at a wide range of 6091

frequencies

. However, as a result of an extensive review of the epidemiologic evidence 6092

published in the peer

- reviewed l iterature there is evidence, which EPA regards as strong, that 6093

pesticide exposure contributes to adverse human health outcomes. 6094

6095



### 6.2.2. Children and families 6096

6097

Several of the changes proposed to the WPS rule are focused on providing additional protections 6098

for ch ildren. These include training components designed to minimize exposure to family 6099

members to pesticides that get taken home; measures that reduce exposure to workers and 6100

handlers themselves (resulting in less take home exposure); minimum age limits for c ertain 6101

worker and handler activities; and training on decontamination practices. These changes are 6102

particularly important when they reduce fetal and childhood exposure. Young and unborn 6103

children are particularly sensitive to pesticide exposure. Children may experience different 6104

exposures than adults due to behavioral differences like crawling on the floor and putting objects 6105

into their mouths, and they can be more sensitive to these exposures because their organ systems 6106

are still developing, and they hav e relatively low body weights (Curwin et al., 2007, Beamer et 6107

al., 2009, Vida and Moretto, 2007). Children in the families of agricultural employees are 6108

exposed to pesticides and there is the potential for negative health effects from this pesticide 6109

expo sure. 6110

6111

Children and adolescents at various stages in development offer “windows of opportunity” for 6112

chemical exposures to have particularly significant effects on growth and development, which 6113

means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the developm ent of humans may have greater or 6114170 lesser health impacts. Because children’s metabolic systems are not fully developed at birth, 6115

continue to develop through childhood and adolescence, and are not uniform across 6116

developmental stages, children metabolize pes ticides and chemicals differently than adults 6117

metabolize pesticides and other chemicals

. The proposed changes to the WPS also include 6118

restrictions on allowing adolescents to serve as pesticide handlers. These changes are important 6119

because adolescents are more apt to make poor decisions about pesticide risks, which is also 6120

discussed below. 6121

6122

Take Home Exposure 6123

6124

Several recent studies have shown that the children of people engaged in agriculture can be 6125

exposed to multiple pesticides. Arcury et al

., (2007) found metabolites of 13 pesticides in the 6126

urine of farmworker children, with the most common result being four different metabolites in a 6127

sample. The study concludes that children in farmworker homes face multiple non

- dietary 6128

sources of exposure to pesticides that remain in the home environment for long periods of time. 6129

Bradman et al . (2009), in a study to develop pesticide exposure models, found 29 different 6130

pesticide residues in the homes of 20 farmworker children in the Salinas Valley of Califor nia, 6131

and pesticide metabolites in the urine of all 20. Curwin et al . (2005) compared 25 farm and 25 6132

non

- farm households in Iowa, testing for pesticide contamination inside the homes. They found 6133

significantly higher levels of atrazine and metolachlor (whi ch only have agricultural uses) in 6134

farm households. The distribution of the samples in the various rooms of the house (higher 6135

levels in the worker changing area and the laundry area) suggest that the pesticides are being 6136

transported home on farmers clothi ng and shoes. There were also higher levels of agricultural 6137

pesticides in home vehicles for farm families. In a literature review of the take home exposure 6138

pathway, Vida et al . (2007), reported results that indicate th at take home exposure is an 6139

importa nt source of exposure for children. The s tudies cited above consistently found higher 6140

levels of pesticides in the agricultural households compared to non

- agricultural households , and 6141

that levels of O rganophosphate (OP) pesticide residues vary by agricultu ral activity. The highest 6142

levels of azinphos

- methyl (an OP pesticide) were associated with thinning activities that a 6143

farmworker would perform, for example (Coronado et al ., 2004, Coronado et al ., 2006). Curl et 6144

al ., (2002) found a high correlation betwe en residues in the home and residues in vehicles, which 6145

suggest the take home pathway is the source for the residues. Exposure studies on 6146

organophosphate metabolites in maternal and child urine samples suggest that the take home 6147

pathway is leading to expo sure in farm families (Bradman et al

., 2003, 2005 ; Bradman 2007 ; 6148

Eskenazi et al ., 2004, 2007). 6149

6150

Research has shown that agricultural workers are generally unaware that occupational exposure 6151

to pesticides can lead to excess pesticide exposure in the home. Snipes et al ., 2009 conducted 6152

interviews with 99 farmworkers and handlers in the Yakima Valley and found several 6153

misconceptions and practices that might lead to take home exposure that could be changed 6154

through training. In particular, respondents believe that dry powder pesticides are much less 6155

harmful than sprays and liquids, PPE is less regularly worn when there is financial pressure to 6156

work quickly, and , as the article states “ previous research has [shown] that farmworkers often 6157

report delaying showerin g for over an hour after work in order to allow their bodies to cool fully 6158

for fear of developing arthritis or other health problems .” Quandt et al . (1998) found that 6159

farmworkers believed pesticides were only dangerous for their intended target, and that acute 6160171 (not chronic) exposure was the primary danger (referenced in Rao et al ., 2007). Other exposure 6161

routes for pregnant women and children may include spray drift from nearby agricultural areas, 6162

or when children are taken to where their parents are worki ng. Prenatal exposures (discussed 6163

below) may be particularly important for long

- term development. 6164

6165

Occupational Exposure to Adolescents 6166

6167

Young pesticide handlers face more risks from pesticide exposure, a problem EPA addresses by 6168

proposing a minimum age for pesticide handlers. There is evidence that adolescents and children 6169

do not make risk management decisions in the way that adults do. Adolescents are more prone 6170

to accidents than the population at large. For examp le, the fatality rate for drivers between 16 6171

and 19 is four times the rate for all adults (Institute for Highway Safety, 2008). In an agricultural 6172

context, adolescents working on farms have shown awareness of safety issues, rules, and the 6173

risks of injury on farms, but they behave according to their own perception of risk, and take more 6174

risks while playing on the farm; the play often uses farming equipment and occurs during 6175

worktime (Rowntree, Darragh et al. , 1998). As reported in Reed et al . (2006), “youn g 6176

agricultural production workers were 3 times more likely to die on the job than their 6177

nonagricultural counterparts.” This statistic includes deaths from all work related causes, and 6178

suggests that younger workers take more risks or behave in a more dange rous fashion than older 6179

workers. In a study of adolescents engaged in high

- risk tasks on farms in Kentucky, Iowa, and 6180

Mississippi, teens were surveyed on their use of protective equipment, work exposures, and 6181

symptoms related to farm work that included in juries (Reed et al ., 2006). When teens were asked 6182

whether they used PPE when it was required, the median self

- reported frequency for use of 6183

respirators and hearing protection was only four times out of the last ten occasions when its use 6184

was required. Acco rding to the authors, protective devices may be used less frequently when the 6185

teens did not perceive a high degree of risk or if they did not have an observed health problem 6186

attributed to that exposure. The authors also suggest that PPE may not properly fi t female teens, 6187

leading to a decreased incidence of use (Reed et al. , 2006). 6188

6189

The cognitive development of adolescents affects behavior, particularly in the areas of judgment, 6190

risk

- taking and decision making ability (Steinberg, 2005). The parts of the bra in going through 6191

these maturation processes in adolescents are important for the perception of risk, evaluation of 6192

risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan et al. , 2010). In an international 6193

setting, Abdel Rasoul et al. (2008) report ed an association between cognitive deficits, 6194

neurological symptoms and pesticide exposure among child and adolescent agricultural pesticide 6195

applicators. This study cohort is from Egypt, which does not reflect use patterns or regulations 6196

in this country, but it does suggest risks when children and adolescents are exposed at high 6197

levels. 6198

6199

Salazar et al . (2004) reported that in a focus group studying 33 Hispanic adolescent farmworkers, 6200

teens knew of the risk associated with pesticide exposure; however, vary ing opinions existed 6201

among the group relating to individual susceptibility. Teens often do not perceive themselves to 6202

be at risk, even when presented with warnings. In the focus group, when asked whether they 6203

washed their hands in between pesticide exposur e and meals, participants responded that they did 6204

not have the time and/ or that they were unaware of the consequences of not doing so. In addition, 6205

participants reported that they would eat berries out of the fields without washing because they 6206172 appear ed to be clean. The adolescents also reported that when safety training was provided, it 6207

was not understood due to the use of “big words,” and that while the boss would discuss 6208

machinery and tools they, “don’t want to waste their time” on health and safety issu es (Salazar et 6209

al ., 2004). 6210

6211

According to Calvert et al. (2003), pesticide poisoning surveillance data shows that working 6212

youths were more likely than adults to suffer an occupational related pesticide illness, attributed 6213

to lower levels of experience with pesticides, and greater sensitivity to pesticide toxicity. The 6214

literature shows that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior than adults. 6215

Therefore it is more difficult to be certain that they will make prudent risk management 6216

decisions. It is not certain why risky behavior is more common among adol escents, but it is a 6217

consistent finding. It seems that adolescents are aware of risks and tradeoffs between behaviors 6218

and consequences, and process the information available to them in ways very similar to adults, 6219

but take greater risks anyway (Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996; Dayan et al ., 2010). The 6220

cognitive changes that occur during adolescence do not fully explain this phenomenon, which 6221

indicates that emotional development and surroundings are important parts of the risk taking 6222

process for adolescents. This picture of the adolescent development and behavior implies that 6223

more rigorous and frequent training, which are features of the proposed rulemaking, will not 6224

protect adolescents to the degree they will protect adults. These potentially at risk adolesc ents do 6225

not respond to information in the same way that adults do, so special protections , such as the 6226

establishment of minimum age for certain activities (with an exception for adolescents covered 6227

by the immediate farm family exemption) are warranted to ensure their safety. 6228

6229



### 6.3. What are the Risks? Pesticide Risks to Workers, Handlers, and Families 6230

6231

This section will provide a brief introduction to some of the risks associated with pesticide 6232

exposure, specifically acute pesticide exposures to workers and hand lers and their families

, 6233

including pesticide exposures that have reproductive effects or effects on children. Some of 6234

these effects may be lifelong, although they may be a result of acute (in the case of 6235

developmental effects) or chronic exposures. A dis cussion of illnesses associated with chronic 6236

occupational pesticide exposure to workers and handlers is provided in Section 6.6 and Section 6237

6.8. 6238

6239



### 6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Effects 6240

6241

The u se of pesticides, substances designed to be toxic, is inherently risky. S ome pesticides are 6242

narrowly targeted to specific life forms or biological processes while others have effects across a 6243

broad spectrum of organisms, including humans. Handlers and workers can be exposed many 6244

ways, to multiple pesticides over the course of a growing season (Arcury et al ., 2010). 6245

E xposures to some pesticides can result in a wide range of acute symptoms. The acute 6246

symptoms from overexposure to pesticides vary, and can range from mild skin irritation to more 6247

severe effects. Severity of sympto ms depends largely on the dose and route of exposure

. 6248

Exposure to organophosphate (OP) pesticides, for example, can result in headaches, fatigue and 6249

dizziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision and other effects (Schulze et al ., 1997). 6250

Severe acute exposures can result in seizures, respiratory depression and loss of consciousness 6251173 ( Reigart and Roberts, 1999). In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. 6252

These are just a few of the wide range of symptoms that can be caused by acute pesticide 6253

exposure; the Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings manual lists almost 100 6254

different symptoms that a medical professional could expect to see following an acute exposure 6255

( Reigart and Roberts, 19 99). Although this brief discussion focuses on acute exposure, workers 6256

and handlers also may suffer chronic exposures that are associated with many diseases, including 6257

several forms of cancer. These are discussed in more detail below, in Section 6.6. 6258

6259

Further evidence that adverse effects of pesticide exposure occur is that pesticide

- related 6260

illnesses can be observed. Although illness resulting from pesticide exposure to workers and 6261

handlers is underreported (see below), there are peer

- reviewed studies , based on pesticide illness 6262

reporting and surveillance initiatives that show evidence of illnesses to workers and handlers. 6263

Calvert, et al . (2008) for example, finds that acute pesticide poisoning incidents in the agriculture 6264

industry “continues to be an important problem.” This study looked at pesticide poisoning 6265

incidents among agricultural workers from 1998

- 2005, and analyzed 3,271 cases. Illness rates 6266

varied across time, age, and region, but for agricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order 6267

of magnitude higher than for non

- agricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the 6268

sample)). Das et al . (2001) identified 486 pesticide illness cases among California farmworkers 6269

for 1998

- 1999, based on a surveillance program with mandatory report ing by physicians. Das et 6270

al . found that about half of all occupational pesticide related illness cases in the California 6271

surveillance system were agricultural (the rest were in other industries) . Over a quarter of the 6272

poisonings were to those mixing, lo ading or applying pesticides. The most common symptoms 6273

were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 39%), and gastrointestinal (about 38%), 6274

and the most common route of exposure was skin contact, followed by inhalation and eye 6275

contact. 6276

6277

Reports t o surveillance programs rank incidents according to severity, such as low, medium, 6278

high, and death. The Calvert (2008) study finds that the majority of cases during the study 6279

period were low severity (87%), 12% were medium severity, and 0.6% were high sev erity, with 6280

one death. While it is encouraging that most cases were ranked as “low severity” in this study, i t 6281

is important to note that the severity categories can be misleading. Even “low severity” cases 6282

can reflect significant morbidity, with the expo sure result ing in health care treatment and the loss 6283

of work days. To be included in the SENSOR

- Pesticides database used for the Calvert study, at 6284

least two post

- exposure symptoms must have been reported by a health

- care professional. 6285

Symptoms categoriz ed as “low severity” include abdominal pain, cramping, nausea, vomiting, 6286

and fever. Symptoms like these and others severe enough to cause a worker or handler to miss 6287

up to three days of work or be hospitalized for up to a day are classified as “low severi ty” cases 4

. 6288

The impact on the financial situation of a low

- income farmworker can be dramatic. 6289

6290



### 6.3.2. Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families 6291

6292

This section discusses reproductive and other risks to children of workers and handlers. These 6293

are just a subset of diseases that have an association with pesticide exposure to farm families; 6294

many others, including some cancers also have an association with pesticide exposure. The 6295

4 A table of symptoms by severity is here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pest

- sitablev6.pdf174 discussion of chronic occupational pesticide exposure and cancers i s in Section 6.6, because 6296

most of the epidemiological research on the links between pesticides and cancer has been based 6297

on occupational exposure. 6298

6299

Reproductive Risks 6300

6301

Reviews have been conducted examining the effects of pesticide exposure during pregnancy on 6302

reproductive outcomes. Sanborn et al . (2007) found 59 studies that examined the relationship 6303

between pesticides and reproductive outcomes and met their criteria for inclusion in their review. 6304

A summary of their findings is found in Table 6.3

- 1. 6305

Table 6.3

- 1. Summary of Findings on Reproduc tive Risks from Sanborn et al. , 2007

Outcome Examined Number of

Papers Found Number of Papers Found that

Display an Association Between

the Outcome Examined and

Pesticide Exposure*

Birth Defect 15 14 (+)

Time to Pregnancy 8 5 (+)

Fertility** 14 7 (

- )

Altered Growth 10 7 (+)

Fetal Death 11 9 (+)

Other Outcomes 6 6 (+)

*The direction of the association is shown in parentheses.

** Fertility refers to the ability to become pregnant in 1 year, and includes male and female factors, such as semen quality and

infertility.

6306

As seen in Table 6.3

- 1, fourteen out of fifteen studies that were reviewed reported an association 6307

between maternal pesticide exposure and an increased risk of birth defects. The specific birth 6308

defects examined in the review consisted of limb reductions, urogenital anomalies, central 6309

nervous system defects, orofacial clefts, heart defects, and eye anomalies. Nine out of eleven 6310

studies showed an association between pesticide exposure and fetal death which includes 6311

“spontaneous abortion, fetal death, still b irth, and neonatal death.” When examining fetal death, 6312

preconception exposure was associated with early first

- trimester abortions and post

- conception 6313

exposure was associated with late spontaneous abortions (Sanborn et al ., 2007). For most 6314

effects, half o r more of the studies evaluated by Sanborn show an association between pesticide 6315

exposure and negative reproductive outcomes. These authors note several limitations of each of 6316

the studies included in the systematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether 6317

publication bias was a factor in the results of this review. Therefore, while these results are 6318

suggestive, the results cannot be considered definitive. 6319

6320

Potential Health Effects in Children 6321

6322

There is evidence to suggest that exposures in the home or pre

- natal occupational exposure to 6323

pregnant women may affect children. Pre

- natal exposure may have particularly important 6324175 effects on the neurological development of children (see below), and Wigle et al . (2009) studies 6325

have found an associati on between pre

- natal exposure to the mother and future childhood 6326

leukemia. As an example, there are agricultural pesticides in use that are regulated on the basis 6327

of developmental toxicity ( i.e. , structural abnormalities, functional deficiencies, altered growth 6328

and fetal loss). These developmental effects can result from an acute overexposure to the 6329

pregnant farmworker during windows of susceptibility of fetal development during pregnancy. 6330

Possible effects from an acute overexposure include miscarriage, cleft palate, exencephaly (brain 6331

tissue outside the skull), hydrocephaly (swelling of the brain), microphthalmia (abnormal eyes 6332

often resulting in blindness), or spina bifida. An overexposure to one of these pesticides could 6333

occur , for example, should a pregnant farmworker enter the treated area too soon after an 6334

application or through drift of a pesticide applied to an adjacent field

. 6335

6336

Children and adolescents are going through important developmental changes, and pesticide 6337

exposure can have a more d eleterious effect on these developing physiological systems than on 6338

the systems in adults

. Although adolescents’ systems are more fully developed than those of 6339

younger children, there are important developmental processes that continue until adulthood.

. In 6340

particular brain changes still continue, such as the final maturation of the cerebral cortex through 6341

synaptic pruning and myelination , an important physiological process that reduce s excess neuron 6342

connections in the brain and enclos es individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increase s 6343

the efficiency of information processing (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur 6344

during adolescence, when the effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous system can be 6345

particularly harmful (Gol ub, 2000). In addition, occupational exposure beginning in adolescence 6346

gives more time for any delayed health effects from chronic exposure to manifest themselves 6347

over a full lifetime. 6348

6349

Several studies investigating the link between fetal and childhood pesticide exposure and 6350

development are on

- going. Three key cohorts

, each funded in part by multiple federal agencies, 6351

are looking at pre

- and post

- natal pesticide exposure in minority mothers and infants, birth 6352

outcomes, genetic susceptibility plus long

- term childhood neurobehavioral and 6353

neurodevelopment outcomes. The co horts are: 6354

6355

• The Columbia University NYC cohort includes predominately African American and 6356

Dominican women and children. This team has reported indoor air, maternal and cord 6357

blood measures of parent chlorpyrifos, and multiple birth and neurodevelopmenta l 6358

outcomes. This cohort was exposed during pregnancy to chlorpyrifos and other 6359

pesticides indoors and in food. One focus of the publications from this group involves 6360

comparisons between pre

- and post

- cancellation of indoor uses of chlorpyrifos. 6361

• Mount Si nai NYC cohort includes women and children who are Puerto Rican Hispanic, 6362

African American, and Caucasian. This team has associated urinary metabolites (TCP 6363

and/or DAPs) with some birth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. The enrollment of the 6364

Mt. Sinai c ohort overlapped with the cancellation of residential uses of chlorpyrifos. 6365

However, the researchers have not evaluated the impacts of the phase

- out of residential 6366

uses of c hlorpyrifos on the health outcomes measured in their publications. 6367

• The CHAMACOS cohort includes mothers and children from farm families who live in 6368

the Salinas Valley, California and who are predominately of Mexican descent. This 6369

cohort is exposed to many pesticides from multiple pathways such as occupational 6370176 exposures and take

- home exposures. This team has, however, associated urinary 6371

metabolites with some birth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. 6372

6373

The cohort most relevant to the WPS rule is the cohort associated with the Center for Health 6374

Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS). The CHAMACOS cohort, 6375

being studied by research ers at the University of California, Berkeley, includes 601 primarily 6376

Latina women from farmworker populations in the Salinas Valley, California. Using data from 6377

this cohort, several studi es have investigated the effects of OP pesticide exposure during 6378

pregnancy on childhood development. Topics included take home exposure pathways (Eskenazi 6379

et al ., 1999; Bradman et al ., 2007), urinary metabolites of pesticides in mothers and their 6380

children (Bradman et al ., 2005 ; Eskenazi et al ., 2007), birth outcomes (Eskenazi et al ., 2004; 6381

Young and Eskenazi, 2005) and neurodevelopmental outcomes (Eskenazi et al ., 2007). These 6382

studies have investigated the effects of organophosphate pesticide exposure d uring pregnancy on 6383

fetal growth and gestational duration (Eskenazi et al ., 2004), and the relationship between 6384

prenatal and child organophosphate (OP) urinary metabolite levels with children’s 6385

neurodevelopment (Eskenazi et al ., 2007). 6386

6387

The published expo sure studies from the CHAMACOS cohort have focused on the six generic 6388

organophosphate dialkylphosphate (DAP) metabolites in maternal and child urine samples, as 6389

well as specific metabolites of malathion (malathiondicarboxylic acid, MDA), chlorpyrifos 6390

(TCP) , and parathion (4

- nitrophenol) metabolites in maternal urine sample, plus a total of 27 6391

commonly used agricultural pesticides found in house dust and the urine of farmworker children 6392

(Bradman et al

., 2003, 2005; Bradman 2007 ; Eskenazi et al ., 2004, 2007)

. 6393

6394

The CHAMACOS findings suggest that young children in a farmworker community are exposed 6395

to pesticides brought home by their parents, and that the pesticide exposure may be associated 6396

with reduced mental development among young children (Eskenazi et al

., 2007), abnormal 6397

reflexes (Young et al ., 2005), and shorter gestation (Eskenazi et al ., 2004). 6398

6399

Similar research in other cohorts is being conducted by both Columbia University and the Mt. 6400

Sinai School of Medicine. This research is focused on urban wome n and their children, so the 6401

pathways of exposure are different, and the range of pesticides to which mothers and children are 6402

exposed are smaller, but these studies report similar results to the CHAMACOS study. All three 6403

cohorts report delayed mental dev elopment associated with an increased exposure to OP 6404

pesticides (Eskenazi et al ., 2007, Rauh et al ., 2006, Engel et al ., 2007). The CHAMACOS and 6405

Mt. Sinai cohorts both report positive associations between OP exposure and abnormal reflexes 6406

in children (Eng el et al ., 2007, Young et al ., 2005). Increased developmental disorders were 6407

reported in both the CHAMACOS and Columbia cohorts (Eskenazi et al ., 2007, Rauh et al

., 6408

2006, Lovasi, et al ., 2011, Engel et al ., 2011). 6409

6410

Several recent studies have shown an ass ociation between organophosphate (OP) pesticides and 6411

the development of behavior related to attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), such as 6412

hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity. A study from the CHAMACOS cohort concluded 6413

that in utero levels of organophosphate metabolites, and, to a lesser extent, postnatal levels were 6414

associated with ADHD behaviors for five year old children (Marks et al ., 2010). Similar 6415

associations are seen in a study of the exposure of children to the organophos phate pesticide, 6416177 chlorpyrifos and attention problems, attention

- deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and 6417

pervasive developmental disorder problems at 3 years of age (Rauh, et al ., 2006, Levasi, et al

., 6418

2011, Engel et al ., 2011). Using a national sampl e of 1,139 children, Bouchard et al . (2010), 6419

found an association between OP metabolites and ADHD behaviors. In this study, compared to 6420

children with undetectable metabolite levels, children with levels higher than the sample median 6421

had almost twice the od ds of having ADHD behaviors. 6422

6423

The biological mechanisms to cause such neurodevelopmental findings reported in these 6424

epidemiology studies are not well understood and thus far causality has not been established. 6425

However, when taken together, findings from t hree different cohorts show a potential link 6426

between pesticide exposure and neurodevelopmental effects. Specifically, these studies suggest 6427

that children exposed to OPs may be at a higher risk of adverse neuro

- developmental and 6428

neurobehavioral outcomes th an children with lower exposures. 6429

6430



### 6.4. Non

- Quantified Benefit s of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents 6431

6432

In the next section, a quantified estimate of the benefits of the rule changes are provided, but 6433

these quantified estimates are based only on the valu e of reduced illness from acute pesticide 6434

exposure to workers and handlers. The quantified estimates are limited to these effects because 6435

sufficient data on illness from acute pesticide exposure exists to make a reasonable estimate. 6436

The estimates, howeve r, exclude many real health benefits that may result from the rule, but for 6437

which sufficient data are not available to quantify these benefits. 6438

6439

The non

- quantified benefits result from a reduction in the effects described in the prior section, 6440

when they are not acute exposure to a worker or handler that is easily observed and reported. 6441

Because of insufficient information on the rates of illness, the reduction in exposure that will 6442

result from the WPS, and dose/response relationship between exposure and i llness, the value of 6443

reducing pesticide exposure that may have reproductive effects for women is impossible to 6444

quantify. Acute exposure to pregnant women (who may be farmworkers) or chronic exposure to 6445

families can result in lifelong developmental, neurol ogical, and behavioral effects in children, 6446

and it is impossible to quantify the benefit s from the proposed WPS rule changes that may 6447

reduce these effects. 6448

6449

The benefits that can be quantified are presented in the next section. Other non

- quantifiable 6450

be nefits from chronic exposures to workers and handlers are discussed in Section 6.8, based on 6451

the possible chronic effects of pesticide exposure presented in Section 6.6. 6452

6453



### 6.5. Quantified Benefit of Avoiding Acute Worker/Handler Incidents 6454

6455

EPA expects the pro posed changes to the WPS to result in benefits by further protecting workers 6456

and handlers and providing them with additional information on ways they can protect their 6457

families. EPA estimates that the benefits from reduced acute pesticide exposure to be $ 11.3 6458

million annually, although important non

- quantifiable benefits are discussed later in the chapter. 6459

This section quantif ies benefits from the reductions in adverse health effects to farm workers and 6460

handlers associated with acute pesticide exposure. 6461178 6462



### 6.5.1. Methodology and Data 6463

6464

We use a two

- step process to estimate the benefits of the proposed rule that accrue through 6465

avoiding acute effects. EPA first estimates the number of acute pesticide poisoning incidents 6466

that will be avoided through provisions in the rule. This is done by evaluating a sample of 6467

pesticide incident reports to identify the proximate causes of the exposure. EPA then determines 6468

whether the provisions of the proposed rule address the causes to estimate the proportion of 6469

pesticide incident s that would be avoided. This proportion is applied to the total number of 6470

reported incidents to estimate the annual number of avoided incidents. As explained in Section 6471

6.5. 2 , underreporting is likely large, which will lead to a downward bias in the est imated 6472

benefits . This downward bias could be eliminated, if the amount of underreporting was known. 6473

A discussion of underreporting and the effect on estimated benefits is provided at the end of 6474

Section 6.5. 6475

6476

The second step is to estimate the value of avoided incidents, given the severity of the effects. 6477

The estimates here are based on avoided medical cost and avoided productivity loss and thus will 6478

underestimate the true willingness to pay of an individual to avoid illness. Avoided deaths are 6479

valued using the value of a statistical life (VSL). 6480

6481

For estimating the proposal’s effect on pesticide incidents we use two complementary databases: 6482

one that gathers sufficient detail on the exposures that led to the incident report but lacks national 6483

representa tion (NIOSH’ Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Exposure, 6484

SENSOR), and one that is nationally representative, but lacks the necessary exposure detail 6485

(American Association of Poison Control Center’s National Poison Data System, NPDS). Data 6486

for the first step in the estimation come from the Sentinel Event Notification System for 6487

Occupational Risks (SENSOR), administered by the National Institute for Occupational Safety 6488

and Health. SENSOR is a surveillance program that monitors occupational illnesses related to 6489

pesticide exposure. EPA obtained data for a three

- year period, 2003 to 2005, during which time 6490

nine states (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, and 6491

Washington) contributed data to SENSOR. Data from California were submitted in 2003 and 6492

2004. SENSOR reports generally contain sufficient detail to identify the type of pesticide 6493

involved in the incident and to evaluate the circumstances of the incident. These data are used to 6494

estimate the proporti on of incidents that would be avoided under the proposed rule. 6495

6496

Because of the limited geographic coverage of the SENSOR data, EPA relies on data from the 6497

National Poison Data System (NPDS) to estimate the annual number of pesticide incidents in the 6498

United States. Illness from pesticide exposure is a poisoning event, and the NPDS tracks 6499

occupational pesticide poisonings. NPDS is a comprehensive surveillance system developed in 6500

1983 and maintained by the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPC C) to track 6501

acute illness and injury related to toxic substances. NPDS is a computerized information system 6502

with geographically specific and near real

- time reporting. The system contains detailed 6503

toxicological information on poison exposures reported to poison centers around the country, 6504

capturing an estimated 98.8 percent of all poison exposures reported to poison centers in the 6505

United States. The NPDS data does not have sufficient information to determine whether a 6506

reported incident could be prevented. NPDS data are also used to estimate the distribution of 6507179 effects, including death, resulting from pesticide incidents. This is explained in more detail in 6508

Section 6.5. 4

. 6509

6510

The value of avoided incidents is measured as avoided cost for treatment and lost productivity. 6511

Information on medical costs comes from two sources. Cost of inpatient care comes from the 6512

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), which is a family of health care databases and 6513

related software tools and products developed through a Federal

- State

- Industry partnership and 6514

sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). HCUP databases bring 6515

together the data collection efforts of state data organizations, hospital associations, private data 6516

organizations, and the federal government to create a national information resource of patient

6517

level health care data. HCUP includes the largest collection of longitudinal hospital care data in 6518

the United States, with all

- payer, encounter

- level information beginning in 1988. Outpatient 6519

costs come from the Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria, which is a Centers 6520

for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying medical 6521

services and procedures furnished by physicians and other health c are professionals. 6522

6523

Finally, data to estimate the value of productivity loss avoided comes from a variety of reports 6524

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Details are presented in Section 6.5. 4

. 6525

6526



### 6.5.2. Underreporting of worker/handler incidents 6527

6528

There is concern that pesticide incidents in general and among the agricultural workforce in 6529

particular are underreported. At least four steps are necessary before a n occupational pesticide

6530

related illness can be recorded by any counting system: (1) workers must perceive that they have 6531

treatable symptoms; (2) workers must seek medical attention; (3) the physician must diagnose 6532

the symptoms as being pesticide related; and (4) the ph ysician or the injured person must report 6533

the incident to the correct recordkeeping system, and the incident must be recorded as pesticide 6534

related. A breakdown at any of the steps would prevent a pesticide poisoning case from being 6535

tallied in surveillance databases (Das et al ., 2001). 6536

6537

(1) Workers and handlers must perceive that they have treatable symptoms of an illnes s. 6538

Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning illnesses and injuries are, unfortunately, usually not 6539

uniquely indicative of pesticide effects. Dermatologic and ophthalmologic effects, such as skin 6540

rashes and eye irritation, also have many other causes. Systemic poisoning by some of the more 6541

common pesticides results in flu

- like or cold

- like symptoms, such as headache, nausea, vomiting, 6542

dizzines s, and a general feeling of malaise. Allergic effects may be either upper

- respiratory 6543

problems that mimic hay fever symptoms, or dermatologic effects similar to those caused by 6544

exposure to poison ivy. Many farm workers may not perceive that their symptoms are related to 6545

pesticide exposures because, unlike handlers, they are not working directly with pesticides and 6546

may not realize that they were exposed to pesticide residues

. 6547

6548

(2) Workers and handlers must seek medical attention. Except in life

- threatening emergencies, 6549

many pesticide

- related acute health effects will gradually disappear without medical 6550

intervention. For example, the cholinesterase enzyme, when inhibited by pesticide exposure, 6551

causes s ome of the more common acute systemic poisoning symptoms. In many cases, this 6552

inhibition will gradually (depending on the family of pesticide, severity, and repetition of 6553180 exposure) recover without treatment. Allergic, dermatologic, and ophthalmologic eff ects will 6554

gradually disappear when exposure to the causal pesticide diminishes. Therefore, many 6555

agricultural workers with treatable symptoms may not seek physician care. A survey of 6556

California workers whose illnesses had been reported to a surveillance s ystem showed that in 6557

40% of the cases, other workers exposed in the same incidents did not seek medical treatment 6558

(Das et al ., 2001), an example of cases that are underreported. 6559

6560

Furthermore, agricultural workers' and handlers’ access to medical care is poor. A report on 6561

migrant farmworkers found that 85% of migrant agricultural workers were uninsured, and only 6562

20% had received any health care in the previous two years; the two most important reasons for 6563

reduced health care access were cost and language d ifficulties (Rosenbaum and Shin, 2005). 6564

6565

The federal Medicaid program provides medical care for qualifying low

- income persons. 6566

Although low

- income, many agricultural workers are not eligible for Medicaid assistance or 6567

have difficulty enrolling in Medicaid programs: 6568

• Many migrant and seasonal farmworkers are not eligible for Medicaid. One significant 6569

barrier is that, under current law, states cannot provide Medicaid coverage to non

6570

disabled low

- income adults without dependent children. Further, since 1996, recent 6571

immigrants, including legal immigrants, have been excluded from Medicaid for the first 6572

five years they reside in the United States. From a financial eligibility perspective, 6573

some states use monthly budgeting rules and have restrictive asset tests, which make it 6574

difficult for low

- income workers with fluctuating incomes and assets needed for 6575

employment (e.g., a truck) to qualify. 6576

• Eligible migrant and seasonal farmworkers can have difficulty enrolling in Medicaid. 6577

Migrant and seasonal farmworkers who are eligible for Medicaid may have difficulty 6578

completing the application and enrollment process. Given their limited English skills, 6579

it can be very difficult for them to complete long application forms or meet extensive 6580

verification requirements, part icularly if there is limited availability of language 6581

assistance. Inaccessible site locations can also impede enrollment. (Rosenbaum and 6582

Shin, 2005). 6583

6584

A survey in Washington State identified several key barriers to seeking medical care for 6585

agricultural workers, including the loss of wages while seeking care, loss of their job through 6586

retaliation, cost, lack of transportation, and lack of trust in the healthcare provider (Washington 6587

State Department of Health, 2003). 6588

6589

Many agricultural workers average 6

- day work weeks during their peak work season. Without 6590

sick leave or similar benefits and often already below the poverty level, they may be reluctant to 6591

miss a day's work (and, thus, a day's wage) or risk losing their job if they are absent to seek 6592

medi cal care. Furthermore, farmworkers in the Washington state survey were unaware that their 6593

medical bills would be covered by workers compensation and feared employer disapproval if it 6594

were discovered that they reported that their illness was caused by an u nsafe practice on the farm 6595

(Washington State Department of Health, 2003). 6596

6597

(3) The physician must diagnose the symptoms as being pesticide related. When medical 6598

treatment is sought, the treating medical personnel may not specifically diagnose the illne ss or 6599181 injury as being caused by an occupational exposure to pesticides. Many signs and symptoms of 6600

such poisoning may be treated symptomatically or an occupational connection may not be 6601

drawn. Like their patients, physicians and other healthcare provider s often have difficulty in 6602

ascertaining the cause of agricultural workers' illnesses and injuries, since the symptoms mimic 6603

those of other illnesses and injuries. It is unknown how often physicians mistake pesticide 6604

poisonings for other causes, but physic ians may not associate vague symptoms with pesticide 6605

poisonings. The person seeking care may not know or identify the cause of the poisoning as a 6606

pesticide. In addition, there may not be laboratory tests to confirm suspicions of pesticide 6607

exposure, and p hysicians may be more concerned with treating symptoms rather than confirming 6608

the causes. 6609

6610

(4) The physician must report the incident to a recordkeeping system, and the incident must be 6611

recorded as pesticide related. Occupational diseases in general are more likely to be under

6612

reported than occupational injuries. A 1991 study of farmworker health and safety in the State of 6613

Washington says: "Frequently, occupational diseases simply do not appear in workers' 6614

compensation records, even when clear

- cut. This is due to reporting disincentives and inherent 6615

difficulties in health care providers recognizing conditions as work

- related." (Washington, 1991) 6616

6617

Barriers to accurate reporting by physicians include a lack of awareness of reporting 6618

requirements and oppo rtunities, reluctance to engage in reporting that might result in legal or 6619

bureaucratic difficulties, and the time constraints on physicians that may prevent them from 6620

completing records and reporting incidents (Azaroff et al ., 2002, Baker et al ., 1998). For 6621

example, a report by the Arizona Office of the Auditor General found: "[S]ome physicians and 6622

healthcare officials suggest that cases may not be reported because healthcare professionals fear 6623

becoming involved in a lawsuit or occupational injury claim i n which they might have to defend 6624

an uncertain diagnosis in court. Our review of literature on the subject corroborated this 6625

statement" (Arizona, 1990). 6626

6627

If any of the four steps needed for accurate recording of an occupational pesticide incident are 6628

not completed, then it will not appear in surveillance databases. There is evidence in the 6629

literature that occupational medical incidents, especially exposures to poisons, are underreported, 6630

although some of this is anecdotal. This may be even more likely in the agricultural sector, due 6631

to the nature of the workforce (Kandel, 2008). In addition, many exposures do not result in acute 6632

symptoms, but accumulated exposure over time can result in chronic symptoms which may occur 6633

many years after exposure, as discu ssed below. Exposures that do not cause immediate 6634

symptoms are unlikely to be reported. Several studies indicate that under

- reporting of illness is 6635

common, both for occupational illnesses and for poisoning incidents, with an estimate of 6636

underreporting ra nging from 20

– 70%. These studies are summarized in Table 6.5

- 1. 6637

6638182 Table 6.5

- 1 Summary of Results from Underreporting Studies

Date Title Goal of Study Underreporting Estimate

1990 Treated vs. Reported Toxic

Exposures: Discrepancies

Between a Poison Control

Center and a Member

Hospital (Harchelroad et al

., 1990) Compare poison control center

reports to actual toxic

exposures presented to an

urban area hospital 74% a

1983 Patterns in Hospitals’ Use of

a Regional Poison

Information Center (Chafee

Bahamon et al ., 1983) Observing usage patterns of a

poison information center by

hospital staff over a two

- year

period “Sufficiently Large” b

1987 Interpretation and Uses of

Data Collected in Poison

Control Centers in the United

States (Veltri et al

., 1987) Identifying the strengths and

weaknesses of the American

Association of Poison Control

Centers National Data

Collection System 67%

2008 Hidden Tragedy:

Underreporting of Workplace

Injuries and Illnesses (US

House of Representatives,

2008) Identifying issues involving the

inclusiveness of reported

workplace injuries and

illnesses 69%

2008 Examining Evidence on

Whether BLS Undercounts

Workplace Injuries and

Illnesses (Ruser 2008) Identifying underreporting for

the Bureau of Labor Statistics,

and how they can be corrected. 20

- 70% c

Notes:

a The EMD evaluated found only 26% of cases were relayed to the regional PCC; resulting in underreport of 74%

b “Sufficiently Large” represents the authors’ interpretation of the differences between hospital’s poisoning reports and the

hospital records, indicating a problematic discrepancy.

c Undercount estimates related to the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, cond ucted by BLS

6639

The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts an annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses 6640

(SOII), which provides a summary on the safety of the nation’s workplaces. Ruser estimates that 6641

the SOII undercounts occupational illnesses, but the estimate range is wide, 20 to 70 percent 6642

(Ruser, 2008). Although attempting to record injuries and illnesses on a national scale, the SOII 6643

omits some groups from the survey entirely. Se lf

- employed, household and small

- farm workers 6644

are not recorded in the SOII. Work

- related deaths are also unaccounted for within the survey. 6645

The BLS realizes the undercount of its SOII, noting that many conditions, notably those caused 6646

by exposure to carc inogens, are often difficult to associate to the workplace, although some 6647

correlation may exist. 6648

6649

The House Committee on Education and Labor estimates that up to nearly 70% of illnesses and 6650

injuries may never make it to the often cited SOII (U.S. House of Representatives, 2008). 6651

According to experts, a major cause of underreporting may be due to the fact that employers may 6652

have certain incentives to minimize reporting, because those operations with fewer injuries and 6653

illnesses are less likely to be inspect ed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 6654

(OSHA). 6655

6656183 There have been three studies on undercounts involving poison control data. The studies each 6657

focus on a specific region and compare cases reported to poison control with those poisonings 6658

f or which there are hospital records. In all three cases, the studies indicate a substantial 6659

underreporting of poisoning incidents. Note that these studies only estimate the underreporting 6660

by physicians ( i.e. , Step 4 in the chain of events for an event to be recorded)

– poisoned people 6661

not seeking medical care or where the cause is misdiagnosed would not be counted in these 6662

studies. 6663

6664

Harchelroad et al . (1990) compared cases, reported to Poison Control Centers (PCC), of actual 6665

toxic exposure results documen ted by an emergency department to a member hospital. Of the 6666

470 exposures that were observed by the emergency department, only 26% were ever 6667

documented and reported. The study suggests that lack of awareness or complacency to toxic 6668

exposure on the part o f the potential callers are probably the major cause for non

- reporting. 6669

6670

Chafee

- Bahamon et al . (1983) investigated the variability of reporting by different hospitals. In 6671

similar regional hospitals, there were significant differences in the identification of poisonings 6672

among admitted patients. The authors doubt that the large difference between the documented 6673

hospitals is due to diagnostic practices alone. In particular, emergency room staff in rural 6674

hospitals or hospitals far from poison control centers were identified as being less likely to call 6675

poison control centers, so the cases were less likely to be recorded in poisoning databases. 6676

6677

The third study, by Veltri et al . (1987), noted problems with the reporting of diagnoses of 6678

illnesses and injuries. This study suggests that not only underreporting but misreporting may 6679

occur. In this case, only about one

- third of the cases evaluated at a regional medical center 6680

could be directly matched to respective poisoning reports. Misclassifications of illnesses and 6681

injuries are believed to be a frequent occurrence, which indicates that existing data on pesticide 6682

poisonings may be consistently low 6683

6684

There are several reasons to think that pesticide incidents specifically are underreported. The 6685

OPP Report on Incident Information (EPA, 2007) lists several factors that cause pesticide 6686

incidents to be unde rreported, most of which are consistent with breakdowns in steps 3 and 4 6687

above. According to the OPP Report on Incident Information, these include 6688

6689

• The lack of a universal, mandatory legal duty to report incidents; 6690

• No central reporting point for all incidents; 6691

• Symptoms associated with pesticide poisonings often mimic other causes; 6692

• Physicians may misdiagnose due to a lack of familiarity with pesticide effects; 6693

• Incidents may not be investigated adequately to identify the pesticide that caused the 6694

effect s; 6695

• Difficulty in identifying and tracking chronic effects; 6696

• Reluctance or inability to report by physicians; 6697

• Limited geographic coverage for individual poisoning databases. 6698

6699

There are good reasons to think that underreporting is at least as significant in t he agricultural 6700

sector among workers and handlers as it is in the general population, due to the characteristics of 6701

the agricultural workforce. Kandel (2008) describes the hired farmworker population as “... 6702184 younger, less educated, more likely to be foreign

- born, and less likely to be citizens or authorized 6703

to work in the United States.” These attributes point toward a relatively disadvantaged 6704

workforce that may be less likely or able to seek medical care or report pesticide incidents to 6705

their employers or anyone else. The literacy, language, legal, economic and immigration status 6706

described in Chapter 1 create challenges for workers who wish to seek medical care, which 6707

would be a primary route for pesticide incidents to be reported and available to be count ed in 6708

poisoning databases. USDA research based on NAWS data also reports that farmworkers have 6709

difficulty entering the health care system to receive treatment. Cost was a significant barrier for 6710

two

- thirds of farmworkers, while about a third listed langu age barriers as an impediment to 6711

receiving care. The problem is more severe among unauthorized workers ( NASS, 2008 a ). 6712

6713

Although these characteristics do not describe all farmworkers, they do paint a picture of a 6714

population that does not have a lot of reso urces to seek healthcare, may be unwilling to interact 6715

with health workers because of their immigration status, or have difficulty communicating with 6716

health workers when they do seek medical assistance as a result of a pesticide exposure. 6717

6718

The limited av ailable data for pesticide poisonings of farmworkers are consistent with the 6719

conclusion that only a small fraction of the symptoms of pesticide poisoning are likely to lead to 6720

medical attention and possible diagnosis. Later in this chapter estimates of a cute benefits from 6721

avoided pesticide incidents are provided, based on reported data. A discussion of the impacts of 6722

underreporting on those estimates is provided at the end of Section 6.5. 6723

6724



### 6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided 6725

6726

EPA obtained a detailed report of N PDS data from AAPCC, describing pesticide incident cases 6727

for 2000

– 2005. In those six years, there were 13,021 occupational pesticide incidents, or an 6728

annual average of 2,170. EPA reviewed all pesticide incident cases reported to SENSOR from 6729

2003

- 2005 and identified a total of 460 occupational cases of which 263 of the cases , 57 percent, 6730

occurred in agricultural settings where WPS is applicable. Thus, o f all occupational pesticide 6731

incidents found in NPDS , EPA estimates that slightly more than 1,200 in cidents occur on farms, 6732

nurseries, and greenhouses annually. 6733

6734

The review of the SENSOR data identified 63 cases that would likely have been avoided under 6735

the proposed revisions to the WPS , as explained below . Another 84 cases might possibly have 6736

been av oided. Thus, EPA concludes that 24 to 56 percent of agricultural incidents, or 14 to 32 6737

percent of all occupational cases, would be likely or at least possibly avoidable through the 6738

proposed changes. Given the number of occupational incidents reported in NPDS, EPA 6739

estimates that 297 to 693 acute incidents would be prevented annually under this rule, before any 6740

adjustment is made for under

- reporting. 6741

6742

By reviewing the pesticide incident reports from SENSOR, EPA was able to identify the 6743

proximate causes o f the exposure causing the incident. EPA then reviewed these cases for the 6744

cause of the incident and determined whether the provisions of the proposed rule would mitigate 6745

the exposure that caused the incident. Cases were categorized as “likely”, “possi ble” or “not 6746

likely” to be prevented by the rule amendments. Categories were assigned using the following 6747

guidelines: 6748185 6749

• Likely: 6750

o A technical proposed requirement, such as respirator fit testing or training, field 6751

posting, or extension of the entry

– restricted area to forests and fields could 6752

mitigate the exposure

. If the details of the case were not robust, the case was 6753

downgraded to “possible.” 6754

• Possible: 6755

o More frequent or more comprehensive training could mitigate the exposure. 6756

• Unlikely 6757

o The exposure was caused by an unforeseeable event, such as a gust of wind 6758

o The incident was dermatitis caused by dust exposure 6759

o The exposure was to the neck of a handler as a result of application to row ends in 6760

orchards 6761

o The exposure was cause d by malfunctioning equipment. 6762

o Consensus of the reviewers was not achieved in the review 6763

o The information in the case report was insufficient to determine if the changes 6764

would mitigate the exposure. 6765

6766

6767

EPA did not use all the available cases for this determination. Certain pesticides, identified as 6768

Restricted Use Products (RUPs), can only be applied by certified applicators or applicators under 6769

their direct supervision and these applicators are subject to separate regulations, which are also 6770

being revised. Although WPS training could be a factor in avoiding or mitigating incidents 6771

involving RUPs, EPA excludes them from consideration here so as not to double count avoided 6772

incidents. The incidents that remain here are those that involve farmworkers or handlers that 6773

were not applying RUPs. 6774

6775

Cases deemed “likely” to be avoided were used to calculate the low

- end ratio of acute exposure 6776

cases to total unintentional pesticide incidents. The combination of cases deemed “likely” and 6777

“possible” to be avoid ed was used to calculate the high

- end ratio of acute exposure cases to total 6778

unintentional pesticide incidents. 6779

6780

The grey box below provides examples of SENSOR cases used for the acute benefits analysis. 6781

6782186 The following are examples of SENSOR cases used for the acute benefits analysis:

“Likely” Cases

Event ID FL00589: In 2003, a farmworker was exposed to Sevin (Carbaryl) while picking oranges. The report

indicated that the supervisor was not trained to train the workers and therefore, the workers w ere not

trained. We assume this acute poisoning case would be likely avoided by the proposed changes to the WPS

rules given the new requirements for worker training as well as more stringent requirements for individuals

performing the worker training sess ions.

Event ID WA01520: In 2005, a handler on an apple farm developed neurological and gastrointestinal

symptoms while spraying a tank mix of Imidan 70

- WP Agricultural Insecticide. In using the ground sprayer,

he felt the spray on his rubber suit and co uld see the mist through his full face respirator. While his

supervisor had instructed him to change the filter every 3 days, he indicated changing the filter whenever

he smelled pesticides. We assume this acute poisoning case would be likely avoided by the proposed

changes to the WPS rules given the new requirements for increased worker and handler training as well as

the new requirement of a proper fit test and training in the use of handler respirators.

Event ID WA00898: In 2003, a handler on an apple orchard developed ocular symptoms after rubbing his

eyes while hanging pheromone (Isomate

- C Pheromone) strips. He was provided gloves and goggles, but

chose not to wear them. We assume this acute poisoning case would be likely avoided by the proposed

cha nges to the WPS rules given the new requirements for increased worker training with expanded

content.

“Possibly” Cases

Event ID MI00382: In 2005, a handler was mixing fungicide (Oxidate Broad Spectrum Bactericide/Fungicide)

from noon to 9:00 pm on a truck and rested his arm on an area with a small spill. The report indicates that

while the worker was wearing a rubber apron, gloves and glasses, he or she should have worn coveralls

over a long

- sleeved shirt and boots. Also, he or she did not check the label for PPE requirements. We

assume this acute poisoning case would be possibly avoided by the proposed changes to the WPS rules

given the increased frequency of training and expanded training content for handlers.

Event ID WA01523: In 2005, an apple appl icator suffered an occupational exposure as the pesticide he was

mixing, Enviro Micro Sulf Micronized Wettable Sulfur, splashed into his right eye. The report indicates the

individual was wearing safety goggles. We assume this acute poisoning case would be possibly avoided by

the proposed changes to the WPS rules given the new requirements for handler training, which would

cause the handler to be more careful when mixing pesticides.

Event ID LA01935: In 2005, a handler spilled the soil fumigant K

- Pam 540 on his foot soaking through the

boot. While the exposed individual was wearing PPE, the report indicates no further actions were taken

once the boot was soaked. We assume this acute poisoning case would be possibly avoided by the

proposed changes to the WPS rules given more frequent training emphasizing the importance of

decontamination procedures.

“Not Likely” Cases

Event ID WA01120: In 2003, an applicator developed ocular and dermal symptoms, but has a long standing

history of allergic symptoms parti cularly when around pesticides. We assume that this case is not likely to

be avoided by the proposed changes to the WPS rules, which do not specifically target people particularly

prone to allergic reactions.

Event ID WA01217: In 2004, an apple thinner developed dermal and respiratory symptoms while working.

He reported dust on the trees, but records show a ground application was made two weeks prior to onset;

the restricted entry interval for the product, Procure 50W is only 12 hours. Without further details

concerning the use of PPE, we assume this case is not likely to be avoided by the proposed changes to the

WPS rules. In this case the entry was well after the restricted entry interval and there is no evidence that

the dust reported was pesticide residue.187 6783

Table 6.5

- 2 presents the results of the review of the SENSOR data. Based on EPA’s evaluation 6784

of the SENSOR data, we estimate that between 24% and 56% of pesticide poisonings where the 6785

WPS applies could be prevented by the rule. The lower estimate is based on avoiding only cases 6786

similar to those deemed “likely” to be avoided due to the proposed changes, as discussed above. 6787

The higher estimate is based on those cases in addition to those deemed as “possible” 6788

preventions after the proposed c hanges. Some of those “possible” cases may not be prevented by 6789

the rule changes (for example, if any were intentional exposures). 6790

6791

Table 6.5

- 2: Estimated SENSOR Cases Avoided under the Proposed Changes for the

Worker Protection Standard

Likelihood of being avoided by

Proposed Rules Number

of Cases

Avoided Percent of Cases

where WPS is

Applicable

(263 Cases) Percent of

Occupational

Cases

(460 Cases)

Likely 63 24% 14%

Possible 84 32% 18%

Both Possible and Likely 147 56% 32%

Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR data.

6792

To estimate the annual national number of pesticide incidents that would be avoided by this rule, 6793

EPA multiplies the percentages in Table 6 .5

- 2 by the annual number of incidents obtained from 6794

the NPDS data, or an annual average of 2,170 occupational incidents . Given that 14 to 32 6795

percent of comparable SENSOR cases

, i.e. , all occupational cases, are likely and/or possibly 6796

avoided by revisions to the WPS, EPA estimates that the proposed changes to the WPS can 6797

prevent between 297 and 693 incidents annually (See Table 6.5

- 4). This estimate accounts only 6798

for reported incidents, which likely make up less than 20 percent of all incidents occurring on 6799

WPS farms. 6800

6801



### 6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided 6802

6803

As explaine d in Section 6.5.2, EPA estimates the value of avoided incidents in terms of the 6804

medical costs avoided, the productivity losses avoided, and the reduction in premature mortality. 6805

These are not the only sources of value, but are quantifiable; other, unquan tifiable benefits are 6806

discussed in Section 6.4 and 6.6. The value of avoided incidents depends on the severity of the 6807

effect caused by the pesticide exposure. More severe effects are more costly because they 6808

require more treatment, including hospitalizat ion. Workers and handlers suffering from more 6809

severe effects are more likely to seek medical treatment. Further, one would expect that a more 6810

severe effect would result in a longer period of recovery during which the victim is unable to 6811

work or engage in other activities. Finally, we need to estimate the probability that an acute 6812

incident will prove fatal in order to estimate the value of a reduction in premature mortality. 6813

6814

Therefore, EPA estimates two quantifiable sources of value from avoiding pestici de incidents 6815

given the severity of effects. For each severity level i, the value of an avoided case is given by 6816

6817188 6818

where V i Av is the value of an avoided case, E[MedCost i ] is the expected medical cost for the 6819

case, and VPL i is the value of productivity lost as a result of the case. We identify four severity 6820

levels as described below: No Effect, Minor Effect, Moderate Effect, and Major Effect. 6821

6822

The expected medical costs for an incident is estimated as 6823

6824

6825

W here Prob(HCF|i) is the probability a person exposed visits a health care facility given the 6826

severity of the effect, OutPtnt i is the outpatient treatmen t cost for the severity of effect, and 6827

InPtnt i is the inpatient treatment cost. Note that this measure of cost does not include any self

6828

treatments. 6829

6830

The value of lost productivity is 6831

6832

VPL i = (ω

w ∙work + ω H ∙housekeeping + ω L ·leisure)·DUR i 6833

6834

where VPL is the value of productivity, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the time 6835

spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each activity, 6836

and DUR is the duration of the effect. 6837

6838

T he value of a reduction in premature mortality , the fifth possible outcome of exposure, is 6839

simply the value of a statistical life (VSL). The VSL is a summary measure for the dollar value 6840

of small changes in mortality risk experienced by a large number of people. VSL estimates ar e 6841

derived from aggregated estimates of individual values for small changes in mortality risks. For 6842

example, if 10,000 individuals are each willing to pay, $500 for a reduction in risk of 1/10,000, 6843

then the value of saving one statistical life equals $500 t imes 10,000

— or $5 million. Note that 6844

this does not mean that any identifiable life is valued at this amount, but rather that the aggregate 6845

value of reducing a collection of small individual risks is worth $5 million in this hypothetical 6846

case. This analysi s uses $7.9 million for the VSL, as recommended by EPA guidance. This 6847

value is based on a distribution of values in 26 published estimates of VSL, and then adjusted 6848

from the base value ($4.8 million in 1990 dollars) using the Consumer Price Index (EPA

, 201 0 a ). 6849

6850

Probability of Effect 6851

6852

EPA obtained a detailed report of NPDS data from AAPCC, describing pesticide incident cases 6853

for 2000

– 2005. In those six years, there were 13,021 occupational pesticide incidents, or an 6854

annual average of 2,170. As shown in Table 6.5

- 3, about 14 percent of the acute cases 6855

considered resulted in “no health effects,” 65 percent in “minor effects,” about 20 percent in 6856

“moderate effects,” fewer than 1 percent in “major health effects,” and about 0.05 percent of 6857

cases per year result in “death.” The majority of cases prevented are in the categories of minor 6858

or moderate effects. 6859

6860189 Table 6.5

- 3: Average Annual Estimate of Annual Pesticide Related Poisoning Incidents

based on NPDS Data

Clinical Effect Number of Cases Share of Total

No Clinically

Observable Symptoms 1 309 14.2%

Minor 1,416 65.3%

Moderate 429 19.8%

Major 15 0.7%

Death 1 0.05%

Total 2,170 100.0%

Source: EPA estimates from a special tabulation of NPDS data from AAPCC

1 “ No Clinically Observable Symptoms ” corresponds to the NPDS category of “ No effect .”

6861

The five severity categories in the NPDS data are defined as follows (American Association of 6862

Poison Control Centers, undated): 6863

6864

• No effect: The patient did not develop any signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure 5

. 6865

• Minor effect: The patient developed some signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure, 6866

but they were minimally bothersome and generally resolved rapidly with no residual 6867

disability or disfigurement. A minor effect is often limite d to the skin or mucus 6868

membranes (nausea, diarrhea, drowsiness, skin irritation, first

- degree dermal burn, sinus 6869

tachycardia without hypotension, and transient cough are all examples of minor effects). 6870

• Moderate effect: The patient exhibited signs or sympto ms as a result of the exposure that 6871

were more pronounced, more prolonged, or more systemic in nature than minor 6872

symptoms. Usually, some form of treatment is indicated. Symptoms were not life

6873

threatening, and the patient had no residual disability or disfig urement (corneal abrasion, 6874

acid

- base disturbance, high fever, disorientation, hypotension that is rapidly responsive to 6875

treatment, and isolated brief seizures that respond readily to treatment are all examples of 6876

moderate effects). 6877

• Major effect: The patien t exhibited signs or symptoms as a result of the exposure that were 6878

life

- threatening or resulted in significant residual disability or disfigurement ( e.g.

, 6879

repeated seizures or status epilepticus, respiratory compromise requiring intubation, 6880

ventricular ta chycardia with hypotension, cardiac or respiratory arrest, esophageal 6881

stricture, and disseminated intravascular coagulation). 6882

• Death: The patient died as a result of the exposure or as a direct complication of the 6883

exposure (NPDS annual report terminology, u ndated). 6884

6885

Given the distribution of effects from the sample of pesticide incidents shown in Table 6.5

- 3 and 6886

the estimated number of cases avoided from Section 6.5. 2 , EPA estimates the distribution of 6887

cases across the five severity levels. As shown in Tabl e 6.5

- 4, the estimated number of national 6888

5 Cases categorized as “No Effect” do not have clinically observable symptoms, and correspond to that category in

the tables.190 incidents that may be prevented with the rule are between 297 and 693. The estimates, except 6889

for “Death,” are rounded to whole numbers. 6890

6891

Table 6.5

- 4 Estimates of Annual Illnesses Prevented by the Proposed Rule, by Severity

Estimate of Number of Cases

Prevented Annually

Clinical Effect Share of Total Low End Estimate

(13.6%) High End

Estimate

(20.1%)

No Clinically Observable

Symptoms 1 14.2% 42 99

Minor 65.3% 193 453

Moderate 19.8% 59 137

Major 0.7% 2 5

Death 0.05% 0.14 0.32

Total 100.0% 297 693

Source: EPA calculations based on the figures in Tables 6.5

- 2 and 6.5

- 3.

Note: Estimates are rounded to whole numbers, except for “Death.”

1 “ No Clinically Observable Symptoms ” corresponds to the NPDS category of “ No effect .”

6892

Valuation of Effect 6893

6894

The value of the illnesses prevented is presented below (in Tables 6.5

- 9 and 6.5

- 10). The 6895

estimates presented are almost surely underestimates for two reasons

. First , the estimated 6896

number of cases prevented is based on the estimated number of reported cases annually, which is 6897

likely to be a poor estimate, as discussed Section 6.5. 2

. 6898

6899

Second, the estimates are based solely on the cost of medical care and lost wages to those 6900

affected by pesticide illnesses, sometimes c alled a “cost of illness” (COI) estimates. Cost of 6901

illness (COI) estimates, however, may significantly underestimate individual willingness to pay 6902

for a variety of reasons (EPA

, 2010 a ) . In particular, these estimate do not: (1) address the value 6903

of avoiding pain and suffering; (2) include costs that individuals incur to avoid the illness ( i.e.

, 6904

defensive or averting expenditures); (3) reflect aversion to risk (the fear of becoming ill); (4) 6905

consider ex ante values (they are based on ex post costs); a nd (5) consider whether treatment 6906

returns individuals to their original health state ( i.e. , is equivalent to avoiding the illness 6907

entirely). 6908

6909

It is also important to recognize that the financial impact of a pesticide illness will hit 6910

farmworkers harder tha n the general population. In general, agricultural workers do not receive 6911

paid sick leave, so they only get paid for days they work and they could potentially lose their 6912

jobs if they cannot work for a day. Lost time at work and the cost of medical care c an have a 6913

greater proportional impact on agricultural workers, because they earn relatively low wages and 6914

because agricultural work is often seasonal. 6915

6916191 In Table 6.5

- 4, estimates of the number of cases that may be avoided as a result of the proposed 6917

rule we re presented and categorized by the level of severity. The savings due to prevented cases 6918

are estimated here. These costs include avoided outpatient physician visits and inpatient 6919

hospitalizations, lost productivity, and premature mortality. For each se verity level except 6920

“death,” expected medical costs are estimated, based on the probability that medical treatment is 6921

sought, and the cost of that treatment. For each severity level except “death,” the value of lost 6922

productivity is estimated. Valuing los t productivity is an attempt to value the time lost due to 6923

illness. Work time is obviously lost, but lost leisure and household time is considered as well. 6924

For each severity level, an average length of illness is multiplied by the value of time spent on 6925

work, household activities, and leisure. 6926

6927

Direct Medical Costs 6928

6929

As explained above, the expected medical cost is given by 6930

6931

6932

Where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability of visiting a health care facility, Outptnt and InPtnt are 6933

treatment costs, and i indicates the level of severity of the effect. 6934

6935

In order to determine the probability of visiting a health care facility for each severity level, we 6936

utilized the NPDS data for 2000

- 2005, which has information on whether cases were treated at 6937

health care facilities. Table 6.5

- 5 presents the number of NPDS cases that were seen at a health 6938

care facility (1,307 cases), the total number of cases over these years, as well as the each 6939

category’s percentag e of the total by medical outcome (or severity level). As our measure of the 6940

probability of treatment at a health care facility Prob(HCF|i) , we use the share of cases from 6941

NPDS that were treated at a health care facility, in the final column of Table 6.5

- 5. 6942

6943

Table 6.5

- 5: Medical Outcome by Management Site for Pesticide

- Related Acute

Exposures, NPDS 2000

- 2005.

Clinical Effect Cases Seen at

Health Care

Facility Total Cases Share of Cases Seen at Health

Care Facility

No Clinically Observable

Symptoms 1 107 309 34.6%

Minor 826 1416 58.3%

Moderate 359 429 83.7%

Major 14 15 93.3%

Source: NPDS data, 2000

– 2005

1 “ No Clinically Observable Symptoms ” corresponds to the NPDS category of “ No effect .”

6944

Inpatient costs were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), 6945

specifically the cost for hospital stays from the HCUP 3

– Hospital Inpatient Statistics, 2007. For 6946

Diagnosis Related Group 16.243 (poisoning by non

- medical substances) the average charges 6947

reported by Clinical Classifications Software was $23,101 in 2007. 6948192 6949

Outpatient unit costs were estimated using data from physician visit benchmark fees for 6950

evaluation and management costs by Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Cr iteria (a 6951

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification system used for identifying 6952

medical services and procedures furnished by physicians and other health care professionals) 6

. 6953

Evaluation and management costs are available for the level of service required for both new and 6954

established patients. Outpatient unit costs are obtained for HCPC Criteria 99213, which 6955

describes a patient visit with an evaluation and management based on a focused problem. For 6956

2007, the average medical facility c harge for outpatient visits that fall into this HCPC category 6957

was $42.48 for patients with an existing relationship with a doctor and $67.60 for new patients. 6958

Given an equal chance that the person exposed to a pesticide will have a doctor or not, the 6959

aver age cost of an outpatient visit is estimated to be $55.10. That cost seems low, but the data 6960

reflects the maximum allowable reimbursement that Medicaid has authorized for those services, 6961

payments that reflect the care that low income patients receive. Th is may be an underestimate, 6962

especially for moderate cases, where some treatment is required, which would imply that the 6963

outpatient cost is underestimated, but there is no available data on additional treatment costs. 6964

6965

Expected medical costs, based on the probability of visiting a health care facility and the cost of 6966

treatment, are shown in Table 6.5

- 6. 6967

6968

Table 6.5

- 6 Medical Cost by Severity of Effect

Clinical Effect Prob(HCF| i ) Outpatient

Cost Inpatient

Cost Expected Medical

Cost 1

No Clinically Observable

Symptoms 2 34.6% $55.10 $0 $19.08

Minor 58.3% $55.10 $0 $32.14

Moderate 83.7% $55.10 $0 $46.11

Major 93.3% $55.10 $23,101 $21,612.36

Source: EPA estimation.

1 Calculated as Prob(HCF|i)×[Outpatient Cost + Inpatient Cost].

2 “ No Clinically Observable Symptoms ” corresponds to the NPDS category of “ No effect .”

6969

The Value of Lost Productivity 6970

6971

The value of lost productivity is estimated as the value of various activities in which a person is 6972

typically engaged over the course of the day, but which he or she could not accomplish when ill. 6973

As noted above, we calculate this value as 6974

6975

6976

Where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the time spent at work, house keeping is the 6977

time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each 6978

activity, and DUR is the duration of the effect. 6979

6 The average facility charge for all providers in 2007 using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, from

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PFSlookup/02_PFSSearch.asp193 6980

BLS data were used to calculate the average number of hours spent on work, housekeeping, and 6981

leisure for a typical working adult. According to the Current Population Survey ( BLS , 2007b), 6982

an employed person works an average of 39.2 hours per week or 5.6 hours per day over a seven

6983

day week. The National Agricultural Workers Survey reports the aver age workweek for 6984

farmworkers to be similar, at 42 hour per week ( DoL, 2005). We use the BLS figure here 6985

because it corresponds to the BLS Time of Use Survey discussed in the next paragraph. The 6986

estimates are not sensitive to this assumption, because leis ure and household activities also have 6987

a value in our analysis. 6988

6989

Time spent in housekeeping activities varies considerably by gender. According to the American 6990

Time of Use Survey ( BLS, 2007 c ), employed males aged 16 and over spend an average of 1.76 6991

hours per day in household activities 7 and employed females aged 16 and over engage in 2.94 6992

hours per day of household activities. There are 78.25 million men employed in the United 6993

States and 67.79 million women ( BLS , 2007 a ). Thus, the weighted average of time spent in 6994

housekeeping is 2.31 hours per day. 6995

6996

Leisure is calculated as the remaining time, assuming an average of eight hours of sleep, or 7.46 6997

hours per day. 6998

6999

The hourly value of work is measured as the weighted average wage rate for workers and 7000

handlers (see Chapter 3.3.2 of this economic analysis), or $ 10.0 1 per hour. This analysis 7001

assumes that workers work 40 hours a week. For farmworkers, this may be an underestimate, 7002

but the results are not sensitive to this assumption, because we are also measuring the value of 7003

lost leisure and housekeeping time. The value of housekeeping is the median hourly earnings for 7004

a personal/home care aide, $9.50 ( BLS , 2007 a ). This labor category was chosen as most closely 7005

representative, given the occupations ava ilable, for the value of housekeeping activities if an 7006

injured worker had to hire outside help. For this analysis, we calculate the value of leisure as the 7007

after

- tax wage rate for workers, because theoretically the take home pay is the rate at which work 7008

and leisure are traded. The overall average tax rate in the United States is 30.8 percent (Tax 7009

Foundation, 2008), which leaves an after

- tax return of $6. 9 3 per hour. 7010

7011

Table 6.5

- 7 presents EPA’s estimate of the value of a fully productive day, the parenthet ical term 7012

in the equation for VPL, including work, housekeeping, and leisure activity. For each activity, 7013

Table 6.5

- 7 presents the average number of hours spent in the activity per day for a seven

- day 7014

week and the estimated value of time spent in each act ivity. The sum over the three activities is 7015

estimated to be $13 5

. 69 per day. 7016

7017

7 Household activity is a broad category that includes all tasks to maintain a household, such as cooking, cleaning,

home and vehicle maintenance, decoration, and yard care, as well as organizational activities like paperwork.194 Table 6.5

- 7: Value of a Day of Full Productivity

Activity Hours/Day Hourly Value

(ω) Total Value per

Day

Work 5.60 a $ 10.0 1 c $ 56. 07

Housekeeping 2.94 a $9.50 d $27.93

Leisure 7.46 b $6. 9 3 e $51. 69

Total Value of a Day of Full Productivity $13 5

. 69

Sources:

a BLS, 2007

, Current Population Survey (CPS)

b Calculated by taking 24 hours per day times 7 days per week and subtracting the weekly time known for work

and housekeeping and assuming 8 hours per day for sleep

c EPA Estimates

– see Chapter 3

d BLS, 2007 CPS: Calculated by taking the median weekly earnings for personal/home care aides ($380) and

assuming an average of 40 hours per week: $9.50 per hour.

e Calculat ed as the wage rate less the overall tax rate for the nation (30.8%).

7018

The duration of illness by medical outcome/severity is derived from severity definitions for the 7019

NPDS data. The NPDS data report the duration of clinical effects for minor, moderate and major 7020

severity levels as a range, such as “greater than 8 hours and l ess than or equal to 24 hours.” For 7021

the purposes of this EA, the estimates of duration for each level of severity are basically a 7022

weighted average of the possible durations in the NPDS data. The weights are the share of cases 7023

reported in the NPDS that ha ve that duration for each severity level. For example, for moderate 7024

clinical effects, 6.1% of patients have duration of effects for less than two hours, while 28% have 7025

durations between 2 and 8 hours, etc. 7026

7027

Since exposure durations by clinical effect were reported with the NPDS 2006 Annual Report as 7028

a range of time ( e.g. , > 8 hours, <= 24 hours), we created a low

- end and high

- end scenario for 7029

each duration category. The low

- end scenario uses either the low

- end estimate if an exact 7030

duration range was g iven ( e.g. , > 24 hours, <= 3 days; the low

- end is 1 day) or if the range is 7031

one

- sided ( e.g. , < 2 hours), then the midpoint was used ( e.g. , for < 2 hours; the low

- end is 1 7032

hour). The high

- end scenario uses the high

- end of the duration range given ( e.g. , > 8 hours, <= 7033

24 hours; the high

- end is 1 day). For this analysis, one month was assumed to be 30 days; a 7034

duration of greater than 1 month was assumed to be 1

- 3 months, with one month for the low 7035

estimate, and 3 for the high estimate; anticipated permanent was assumed to be 1 year at the high 7036

end. The unknown duration was excluded from the analysis. 7037

7038

There are no data available on the duration of clinical effects for “no effect.” However, people 7039

who visited a health care facility for “no effect” (34.6%) w ere assumed to experience reduced 7040

productivity for the shortest duration group (< 2 hours), or a low

- end duration of one hour (about 7041

.04 days) and the high

- end duration is 2 hours (about 0.08 days). Because only 34.6% of cases 7042

with “no effect” visited a h ealth care facility, the average duration for no effect is 34.6% of .04 7043

days for the low end (0.014 days) and 34.6% of .08 days for the high end (0.029 days). 7044

7045

Table 6.5

- 8 shows the estimated average duration of clinical effects at each level of severity, 7046

with a high end and a low end estimate, as discussed above. The time of effects, measured in 7047195 days, is multiplied by the value of a full day of productivity ($13 5

. 69 ) to yield high and low 7048

estimates of lost productivity for each severity level. 7049

7050

Table 6.5

- 8: Average Clinical Effect Duration and Value of Lost Productivity by Clinical

Effect

Clinical Effect Scenario Average Duration

of Clinical Effect

(Days) a E[VPL i ] c

No Clinically Observable

Symptoms 1 Low

- End 0.014 b $1.9 6

High

- end 0.029 b $3. 92

Minor Low

- End 0.52 $ 70. 39

High

- end 1.78 $ 242. 07

Moderate Low

- End 1.05 $ 14 1

. 9 9

High

- end 3.39 $ 46 0 .2 3

Major Low

- End 3.95 $ 53 5

. 72

High

- end 14.41 $1, 9 5 4

. 97

Sources:

a With the exception of no effect, the average duration in days was calculated as the weighted average of duration

estimates for each severity level, with the weights given by the share of patients with that duration. As a simple

example, 31.9% of patients with a clinical effect level of “moderate” had a duration of 8

– 24 hours, so the weight

on 8

– 24 hours is 0.319 for the moderate effect level.

b The average duration for no effect was assumed to be the shortest duration group presented (< 2 hours); so the

low

- end duration is the midpoint of 1 hour or 0.04 days and the high

- end duration is 2 hours or 0.08 days, scaled

by 34.6%, the percentage of cases that sought care.

c With the exception of no effect, the unit cost for lost productivity day by scenario and clinical effect was

calculated by multiplying the average duration of clinical effect in days by the value of a full day of productivity

($13 5

. 69 ).

1 “ No Clinically Observable Symptoms ” corresponds to the NPDS category of “ No effect .”

7051

The Value of Re duced Premature Mortality 7052

7053

The value of reduced premature mortality is simply the value of a statistical life, which EPA 7054

(2010) estimates at $7.9 million. The VSL is an aggregated estimate of the value of a small 7055

reduction in the risk of death over a lar ge group of people. Only the VSL is used for poisonings 7056

resulting in death, because any medical value is dwarfed by the value of life itself, and lost 7057

productivity is included in the VSL. 7058

7059

Annual Average Benefits , Avoided Acute Effects of Incidents 7060

7061

The estimates of the total cost avoided by the rule are given in Tables 6.5

- 9 and 6.5

- 10. For each 7062

level of severity, cost is the sum of direct medical costs, lost productivity costs, and the value of 7063

premature mortality multiplied by the number of cases avoided. We then sum across all severity 7064

levels to estimate the total avoided costs for the rule. Table 6.5

- 9 shows the low end estimates, 7065

which are based on the low end estimates of costs and the low end estimate of the number of 7066

prevented cases, while Table 6.5

- 10 shows the high end estimates. 7067

7068196 Table 6.5

- 9: “Low

- End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Proposed Changes to

the WPS

Clinical

Effect Avoided

Cases

per Year Medical

Costs per

Case Lost

Productivity

per Case Premature

Mortality per

Case Average Annual

Total Cost

Avoided

No Clinically

Observable

Symptoms 1 42 $19.08 $1.9 6 $0 $900

Minor 193 $32.14 $ 70. 39 $0 $19, 9 00

Moderate 59 $46.11 $14 1

. 9 9 $0 $11, 1 00

Major 2 $21,612 $ 53 5

. 72 $0 $45,500

Death 0.14 $0.00 $0.00 $7,900,000 $1,082,000

Total 296 $1,159, 4 00

Source: EPA calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded.

1 “ No Clinically Observable Symptoms ” corresponds to the NPDS category of “ No effect .”

7069

7070

Table 6.5

- 10: “High

- End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Proposed

Changes to the WPS

Clinical

Effect Avoided

Cases

per Year Medical

Costs per

Case Lost

Productivity

per Case Premature

Mortality per

Case Average Annual

Total Cost

Avoided

No

Clinically

Observable

Symptoms 1 99 $19.08 $3. 92 $0 $2,300

Minor 453 $32.14 $ 242. 07 $0 $12 4

, 2 00

Moderate 137 $46.11 $ 46 0 .2 3 $0 $6 9

, 4 00

Major 5 $21,612 $1, 95 4

. 97 $0 $117, 8 00

Death 0.32 $0.00 $0.00 $7,900,000 $2,524,600

Total 693 $2,83 8

, 3 00

Source: EPA Calculations.

Note: Estimates of both avoided cases and average annual costs are rounded.

1 “ No Clinically Observable Symptoms ” corresponds to the NPDS category of “ No effect .”

7071

T he annual estimate d benefits from avoiding acute effects of pesticide incidents range from $1.2 7072

to 2.8 million. O ver a ten year period of analysis, the present value of these benefits is between 7073

$10.2 million and $24.9 million when a 3 percent discount rate is applied and between $8.7 7074

million and $21.3 million when a 7 perc ent discount rate is applied. 7075

7076197 There are limitations to these estimates. A s discussed above we expect that a large proportion of 7077

accidental (acute) pesticide poisoning of workers and handlers never get reported to a national 7078

poisoning center for various reasons. Migrant farm workers and handlers may be less likely to 7079

report acute poisoning cases to poison control centers. Other workers with incomplete 7080

information on the requirements of the WPS may also not report poisoning cases for fear of 7081

reprisal. A ll indications are that underreporting is substantial. Unreported cases are therefore 7082

not included in the NPDS or SENSOR databases and, hence, not included in this analysis. This 7083

underreporting will bias estimates of acute benefits downward. 7084

7085

In Table 6.5

- 11, we show the effect of under

- reporting at different rates on our monetized 7086

estimates of avoiding acute pesticide poisonings. With 100% reporting (or 0% underreporting), 7087

then the actual benefits of acute illnesses are equal to the estimated benefits . If there is 7088

underreporting, then the actual benefits can be substantially higher. Table 6.5

- 11 shows a range 7089

of benefit estimates corresponding to different reporting rates (100%, 50%, 25%, 20%, and 7090

10%), which provide a range of values and show the se nsitivity to different assumptions about 7091

underreporting. As an example, if only 10% of cases are reported, and underreporting is equally 7092

likely in all poisoning cases, then the high

- end estimate of the value of prevented poisoning due 7093

to the rule would be over $28 million per year, substantially higher than those reported above

, 7094

which assume 100% reporting. The distribution of health effects associated with these 7095

unreported acute exposures of workers and handlers are also not known. If reporting rates va ry 7096

by severity, in such a way that more severe (and expensive) cases are more likely to be reported, 7097

then the effects of underreporting would be correspondingly lower. For example, if deaths were 7098

never under

- reported, but all other severity levels of illn ess were under

- reported, the high

- end 7099

estimate of the value of prevented poisonings with only 10% reporting would be about $5. 7 7100

million per year. This is because the value of a statistical life is so high, the results change 7101

dramatically with changes in t he estimated number of deaths prevented. Later in this chapter we 7102

will use of $11.4 million as our estimate of acute benefits after adjusting for underreporting, 7103

which corresponds to a reporting rate of 25%, which is a plausible estimate based on the 7104

unde rreporting studies discussed in Section 6.5.2

. 7105

7106

Table 6.5

- 11. Sensitivity of Annual Quantified Benefit Estimates to Assumptions

about Underreporting

Share of Cases

Reported Low

- End

Estimate of

Prevented Cases Low

- End

E stimate of

Benefits High

- End

Estimate of

Prevented Cases High

- End

estimate of

Benefits

100% 296 $1,159,400 693 $2,83 8

, 4 00

50% 592 $2,318,800 1,386 $5,67 7

, 8 00

25% 1,184 $4,637,600 2,772 $11,3 53

, 6 00

20% 1,480 $5,797,000 3,465 $14,1 92

, 0 00

10% 2,960 $11,594,000 6,930 $28,3 84 ,000

Source: EPA Calculations

7107

7108

All estimates presented in this chapter include only the effects of reduced illness from acute 7109

exposure

– the effects of chronic exposure are discussed in the next section. There is no attempt 7110198 to measure the willingness to pay to avoid symptoms, which is likely to be substantial; we 7111

calculate only the avoided costs in medical care and lost productivity to workers. 7112

7113

It is important not to forget that the costs of these acute illnesses are borne primarily by 7114

farmworkers, and farmworkers are some of the members of our society with the least ability to 7115

absorb financial impacts. According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey ( DoL , 2005) 7116

farmworkers on average only perform farmwork for 34 weeks a year, so lost employment time is 7117

a relatively larger share of their overall working year. The financial impact is also relatively 7118

greater for farmworkers than the population as a whole. A full 30% of farmworker families are 7119

below the pove rty line. Average individual income is between $10,000

- $12,499 per year, and 7120

average family income is $15,000

- $17,499 per year, which means that medical expenses can 7121

consume a substantial part of their annual income ( DoL, 2005). 7122

7123

Some of the proposed r equirements will be implemented later than others. Most requirements 7124

have an effective date 90 days after the rule is signed; some proposals will be effective two years 7125

after signature. The delayed requirements include the changes to training topics and materials, 7126

requirements on who can train workers, changes to the content of warning signs, and the 7127

requirement that a handler suspend or cease application if a person enters the treated area. The 7128

quantified benefit estimates presented in this section are not adjusted for this change. This is 7129

because most of the delayed changes, such as training materials on how to safeguard the families 7130

of workers and handlers are unlikely to show up data used for estimating illnesses, as discussed 7131

in that section. Of th e cases that were used to generate the estimates of illnesses prevented, only 7132

six would possibly have been prevented by the individual items that are required two years after 7133

signature of the rule. In all cases the relevant provision is that an applicatio n be suspended if a 7134

person enters the treated area. In at least three of these six cases, other provisions of the 7135

proposed rule would likely have protected against the exposure. If all six cases are classified as 7136

unlikely to be prevented until year three , the quantified estimates of benefits change slightly. 7137

They are reduced, because some exposures will not be prevented for two years. The change in 7138

estimates is relatively small, however; annualized benefit estimates are reduced between $12,000 7139

and $30,0 00 per year, depending on the discount rate and whether the high or low end estimates 7140

are used. 7141

7142

The next section will discuss the risks of chronic pesticide exposures to workers, handlers and 7143

families, or acute exposures that have developmental effects. 7144

7145



### 6.6. What are the Risks? Chronic Pesticide Exposure and Risks to Workers 7146



### and Handlers 7147

7148

In the previous section, estimates of reduced illness from acute exposures to pesticides are 7149

presented. Although these estimates are based on the best available data, the re are uncertainties 7150

reflected in the estimates, e.g. , potential under

- reporting. In addition to these acute effects, there 7151

are chronic health effects that may be associated with chronic, generalized pesticide exposure. 7152

EPA anticipates that benefits would accrue to agricultural workers from reduced chronic health 7153

effects. The quantification of chronic cases avoided is not reflected in the acute poisoning 7154

surveillance benefits assessment. This section will describe the potential chronic health effects 7155

to farmworkers, pesticide handlers and their families from pesticide exposure. Following this 7156199 section, EPA presents a semi

- quantitative method for assessing benefits (“break

- even analysis ”) 7157

to chronic health conditions, i.e. , chronic cases avoided due to the rule. 7158

7159

It is important to note that EPA is not stating that there is a causal link between certain health 7160

outcomes and exposure to specific pesticides. It would be premature at this stage to suggest a 7161

causal link between these exposures and the health outcomes. However, information linking 7162

pesticide exposure and illness is compelling enough to suggest some of the statistical 7163

associations may at some point in future be determined to be causal in nature. Therefore, overall 7164

pesticide exposure reduction through WPS m ay have substantial benefits that cannot be 7165

quantified at this time. 7166

7167

While there is limited epidemiological evidence of a definitive causal link between specific 7168

pesticide exposures and adverse chronic health outcomes at this time, this section presents 7169

e vidence of well

- documented associations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and 7170

non

- cancer chronic health effects in the peer

- reviewed literature. Typically several 7171

epidemiology studies conducted over time, using different study designs, and tak ing place within 7172

different study populations in addition to other streams of scientific evidence are required before 7173

researchers can move from a statistical “association” to a causal determination. The 7174

environmental epidemiology literature is growing rapid ly in terms of both quantity and quality of 7175

pesticide epidemiology studies, and EPA believes additional causal links between pesticide 7176

exposure and adverse health outcomes in the human population will be provided over time. 7177

7178

Even though there have been rel atively few proven cause and effect associations between real 7179

world pesticide exposure and long

- term health effects in human populations, many exposure

7180

chronic disease associations have been tested in observational studies and critically evaluated in 7181

the s cientific peer reviewed literature, and research is ongoing. The breadth and depth of this 7182

collective research shows the significant interest in public health organizations worldwide on the 7183

issue of chronic, long

- term health effects of pesticides. As an example, the International Agency 7184

for Research in Cancer (IARC) currently lists dioxin and some arsenical pesticides as definite 7185

carcinogens, and several other pesticides are listed as p robable carcinogens . R esearch is 7186

underway to determine if other pesti cides are also ca r cinogenic . There is a large body of 7187

epidemiological evidence and ongoing research on long

- term health effects (such as cancer, 7188

neurological, respiratory, fertility, behavioral, and other long

- term health effects) that may result 7189

from pes ticide exposure, but the state of the science at this time yield s few causal relationships to 7190

specific pesticides, which highlights the importance of reduced general pesticide exposure. 7191

7192

There are several ongoing studies with large cohorts funded by fede ral governments in the U.S. 7193

and abroad, and studies within these cohorts suggest several plausible hypotheses to link 7194

pesticide exposure to chronic health effects. The largest of such cohorts in the United States is 7195

the Agricultural Health Study funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institute 7196

of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and co

- sponsored by EPA, among other 7197

collaborating agencies. This is a study with 89,000 participants in Iowa and North Carolina, 7198

including private and commer cial pesticide applicators and their spouses, investigating a broad 7199

array of potential illnesses. A cohort in Norway includes over 245,000 people to investigate 7200

links between cancer and other diseases and agricultur al chemicals (Kristensen et al ., 1996, 7201

N ordby et al ., 2005). In France a large study is underway to investigate the links between 7202200 agricultural work and cancer, with an emphasis on pesticides (Lebailly et al ., 2006). The Korean 7203

Multi

- Center Cancer cohort is collecting pesticide exposure data on tens of thousands of people 7204

as part of a large scale study of environmental and genetic factors associated with cancer risk 7205

(Yoo et al ., 2002). The National Cancer Institute recently initiated a collaborative effort, 7206

AGRICOH , which is designed to encour age international collaboration

. I t encompasses 22 7207

cohorts from nine countries pooling data to study cancer and other disorders that can result from 7208

pesticide exposure and other causes (Leon, et al ., 2011). 7209

7210

Studying chronic health effects of long

- term pe sticide exposure in agricultural workers is 7211

complicated by many factors. These include exposure to multiple chemicals , not just pesticides ; 7212

exposure for differing durations with differing periodicity, i.e. , intermittent or sustained ; and 7213

multiple routes of exposure

, e.g. , dermal and inhalation . Many epidemiologic studies that include 7214

certified pesticide handlers and applicators such as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) and 7215

other occupational cohorts reflect exposure profiles that largely result from appro priate, label use 7216

of pesticides, however, misuse does occur (Bell et al ., 2006). These certified applicators that 7217

form the core of the AHS cohort may face different exposure compared to other agricultural 7218

workers and handlers. 7219

7220

Another complicating factor is that, o ver time, EPA and others, such as state governments, have 7221

implemented risk mitigation measures including increased requirements for the use of personal 7222

protective equipment, revised re

- entry intervals, and at times the cancellation of pest icide 7223

products or specific pesticide uses. It should be noted that while studies published today 7224

contribute to the general body of scientific knowledge, not all epidemiologic research would 7225

necessarily have current regulatory relevance, e.g. , if the pestic ide was already cancelled or 7226

withdrawn from the marketplace. Additionally, changes in pest pressure, agronomic practices, 7227

and other factors have resulted in significant changes in the use of pesticides over the last several 7228

decades, which is the relevant p eriod for investigating chronic effects with typically long latency 7229

periods such as cancer. As a result, studies which reflect past exposure scenarios must be 7230

interpreted with caution when applied to current regulatory questions. 7231

7232

Emerging research sugge sts that early exposure, either pre

- natal or in early childhood, may be 7233

linked to chronic health outcomes later in life. These early exposures may occur from pesticides 7234

that are on the bodies or clothes of workers and handlers. A number of studies have s hown the 7235

potential for “take home” exposures, where an agricultural worker brings pesticide residues 7236

home on their body or clothing (see Section 6.2.2). Because one of the changes in the rule is an 7237

increased focus on training about the take home pathway, this type of exposure should be 7238

reduced resulting in long term health benefits to workers, handlers and their families, including 7239

children. 7240

7241

These studies on chronic pesticide exposure and other scientific information all need to be 7242

evaluated to determine the potential for individual pesticides to cause adverse long

- term health 7243

impacts. When identified as problematic, EPA can take action to mitigate the risk of individual 7244

pesticides, but these reviews indicate there is cause for concern over generalized pe sticide 7245

exposure, and in some instances shows the importance of exposure mitigation for individual 7246

pesticides. The proposed WPS rule changes are designed to protect against agricultural worker 7247201 or handler exposures when the current state of the science doe s not support action on individual 7248

chemicals. 7249

7250

Later in this section, EPA summarizes some of the research on chronic health effects from 7251

pesticide exposure that have shown possible links to blood and prostate cancers, neurological 7252

effects like Parkinson’s disease and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, fertility effects like 7253

impaired fertility and adverse birth outcomes , and respiratory problems like asthma . Although 7254

several other associations have been measured in the literature, these are selected for discussion 7255

here due to either the relative strength and plausibility of the hypothesized link, the number of 7256

studies available, or the relatively high prevalence of either the health outcome or a particular 7257

pesticide exposure. Overall, the totality of reported findings suggests that the long term health of 7258

agricultural workers and their families will benefit from the rule, but, due to the state of scientific 7259

research and measures of chronic exposure at this time, quantitative benefits are not possible to 7260

estimate. A discussion of the plausibility of benefits from a subset of disease reductions from 7261

reduced chronic exposure is presented in Section 6.8. 7262

7263



### 6.6.1. Cancer Risks 7264

7265

Although o nly a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogen s by 7266

various peer

- review bodies , t here is a wide range of literature demonstrating statistical 7267

associations between pesticide exposure and cancer, with biological plausibility illustrated in 7268

experimental toxicology studies. The International Agency for Res earch on Cancer (IARC) has 7269

only identified two classes of pesticides to be human carcinogens (some arsenical insecticides 7270

and those with dioxin contaminants), but classifies non

- arsenical pesticides as p robable human 7271

carcinogens (WHO IARC, 1999) . However , many studies have evaluated other possible links 7272

between pesticide exposure and cancer. 7273

7274

Synthesizing across the studies of the carcinogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review 7275

articles and meta

- analytic results indicate evidence of an association b etween various pesticide 7276

exposure and lymphohematopoetic cancers (non

- Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and leukemia 7277

specifically); among solid tumors (brain and prostate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric 7278

cancer risk in association with either in utero expo sure or parental pesticide occupational 7279

exposure (Bassil et al ., 2007; Blair and Beane

- Freeman 2009; Koutros et al ., 2010 a ; Van Maele 7280

et al ., 2011, Wigle et al ., 2009, Turner et al ., 2009, Alavanja and Bonner, 2012, and Alavanja et 7281

al ., 2013). This sectio n will discuss some of the evidence for the possible connection between 7282

pesticide exposure and these cancer effects. 7283

7284

Blair and Beane

- Freeman (2009) provides a review of epidemiologic studies of cancer among 7285

agricultural populations. They report that meta

- analyses of mortality surveys of farmers find 7286

excesses of several cancers, including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multipl e myeloma 7287

and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain and deficits for total mortality, heart disease, total 7288

cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that meta

- analyses 7289

of studies of individual cancers show the importance of identifying specific exposures that lead 7290

to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these authors conclude factors other than 7291

pesticide exposures may partially explain the observed increased risk of cancer among those 7292

engaged in agricult ur e (Blair and Beane

- Freeman 2009). 7293202 7294

Initial evidence of a possible association between various pesticide exposures and cancers of the 7295

lung, colon, prostate, bladder and pancreas have also been published by the AHS researchers (for 7296

example, Alavanja et al ., 2004 for lung cancer, Lee et al ., 2007 for colon cancer, Andreotti et al

., 7297

2009 for pancreatic cancer). Among farmworkers specifically, cancers of the cervix and 7298

stomach have also been noted (Mills and Yang

, 2009). 7299

7300

Lymphohematopoetic Cancers 7301

7302

Over time, evidence of a link between pesticide exposure and blood cancers has increased. For 7303

example, since the 1980’s several studies have illustrated a possible link between pesticide 7304

exposure and various lymphohematopoetic cancers (Zahm and Ward, 1998, Zah m et al ., 1997). 7305

Incidence of NHL and other blood cancers have increased between1973

- 1990, a time period 7306

coincident with an increased use of pesticides as well as other environmental chemicals (Hardell 7307

et al ., 2003). While biological mechanisms remain to be determined (for example, Chiu and Blair 7308

2009), the role of a particular chromosomal translocation (t14:18) has been implicated, possibly 7309

as a result of pesticide exposure; however this is not known with certainty at this time. 7310

Comparing rates of new bl ood cancers among pesticide applicators relative to the general 7311

population, Koutros, et al . (2010 a ) reports higher incidence rates for multiple myeloma and 7312

lymphoma. Eriksson and colleagues reported elevated rates of NHL among herbicide users in a 7313

populat ion

- based case

- control study in Sweden, including increased risks for users of glyphosate 7314

(Eriksson et al ., 2008). There may be a link between pesticide exposure and these cancers, 7315

however additional research is necessary to understand whether the link is causal in nature, and 7316

the degree to which pesticide exposures and other farm related exposures may contribute to the 7317

risk of these cancers. 7318

7319

In a review by Bassil et al . (2007), 14 out of 16 papers examining the association between 7320

leukemia and pesticides found a positive result. Of the 16 papers, 8 were case

- control studies 7321

with statistically significant results. Several case

- control studies looked at children that had been 7322

exposed to pesticides and found increased rates of all types of leukemia whose pare nts used 7323

insecticides on the garden and on indoor plants and from those mothers exposed while pregnant 7324

(Bassil et al ., 2007). These authors note several limitations of each of the studies included in the 7325

systematic review, and note they were not able to a ssess whether population bias was a factor in 7326

the results of this review. 7327

7328

In the Bassil et al . review, 27 studies met their criteria for inclusion into their review that 7329

examined the association between pesticide exposure and NHL, and 23 found an associa tion. For 7330

the case

- control studies in this review, 12 of 14 papers had positive associations and 8 of those 7331

associations were statistically significant. In one study that examined children’s exposure to 7332

pesticide s

, elevated odds ratios for NHL were found i n children who lived in homes where 7333

pesticides were used most days for professional home extermination, when children had direct 7334

postnatal exposure or when children had parents that were occupationally exposed. The elevated 7335

risks found were over several cl asses of pesticides (Bassil et al ., 2007). 7336

7337

Wigle et al . (2008) conducted a review of studies investigating links between occupational 7338

exposure to pesticides and leukemia in workers ’ children. They found no evidence of a direct 7339203 link between children’s leu kemia and all parents’ occupational exposure, but they report an 7340

association between a mother’s occupational exposure to general pesticides and insecticides and 7341

their children’s risk of leukemia, with an association slightly higher for farm and other 7342

signi ficant related exposures. 7343

7344

Prostate Cancer 7345

7346

For decades, studies have suggested an increased risk of prostate cancer among farmers. Farmers 7347

are generally more healthy than the overall population, with lower rates of cardiovascular 7348

disease, diabetes, morta lity, etc. (Blair et al. , 2005) . However , farmers have an increased risk of 7349

prostate cancer which may be explained by pesticide exposure, or possibly by other farm

- or 7350

non

- farm related exposures. Comparing the incidence of prostate cancer in farmers with 7351

members of the general population, researchers have estimated that farmers have a rou ghly 20% 7352

increased risk of this cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010 a ). Case

- control analysis within the AHS 7353

suggest exposure to several organophosphate pesticides may be related to prostate cancer, but 7354

only among men with a family history of the disease (Alavanja et al .. 2003). Additional follow

7355

up within the AHS cohort corroborate this initial finding (Mahajan et al ., 2006 and 2007; 7356

Christensen et al ., 2010). The association of prostate cancer with certain pesticide exposure 7357

varies by family history of prostate c ancer, and molecular epidemiology studies are underway 7358

that may shed light as to the potential role of genetic variation in the association. This work is 7359

not yet complete. However, initial investigations recently released indicate that a genetic 7360

variation in genetic region 8q24 may partially explain the association between pesticide exposure 7361

and prostate cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010 b )

. A lthough these genetic variations do not fully 7362

explain the cancer relationships within a family, so other shared environm ental exposures may 7363

play an important role. Overall, however, across studies published, results are not consistent, 7364

possibly due to differing study designs used. 7365

7366

In investigations of farmworker populations, prostate cancer associations have also been fo und

. 7367

For example, Mills and Yang (2003) investigated prostate cancer risk among farmworkers in 7368

California, and concluded that high levels of exposure to various types of pesticides left Hispanic 7369

workers with an elevated risk of prostate cancer. 7370

7371

Recently, AHS researchers produced a new analysis of pesticide exposure and prostate cancer, 7372

this time focusing upon more aggressive cases of the disease (Koutros et al . 2012). For the 7373

purposes of this study, aggressive prostate cancer was defined as a distant stag e (tumor tissue 7374

outside of prostate), and advanced grade (more poorly differentiated cell structure) indicative of 7375

a more advanced disease. Researchers observed an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer 7376

among those who reported using higher amounts o f four pesticides over their working lifetime. 7377

This work supports previous analyses noting links between specific organophosphate pesticides 7378

and prostate cancer . It also extends an understanding of the possibility of a link with the 7379

aggressive form of the disease, which is thought to have a different set of causal factors than 7380

slow

- growing tumors. This is the first study on an aggressive disease, and more work is needed 7381

to distinguish clear causal pathways

. H owever the study is supportive of previous work 7382

concerning an apparent increased risk of prostate cancer among pesticide applicators enrolled in 7383

the AHS. 7384

7385204 Lung Cancer 7386

7387

There have been studies on the link between pesticide exposure and lung cancer. Alavanja et al

. 7388

(2004), reported a positive association between four pesticides and pesticide exposure among the 7389

AHS cohort. In this study, exposure to these pesticides was associated with lung cancer risk in 7390

the cohort, despite the fact that, in general the lung cancer risk for the cohort is lower than the 7391

population as a whole. Other studies have also shown an association between pesticides and lung 7392

cancer in the AHS cohort (Beane

- Freeman et al., 2005; (Lee et al., 2004). 7393

7394



### 6.6.2. Non

- Cancer Health Effects 7395

7396

Many epidemiological studies have posited a non

- cancer chronic health consequence of pesticide 7397

exposure, however none have been determined to be causal in nature at this time. Preliminary 7398

investigations have identified elevated risks of respiratory and neurological effects; as these are 7399

preliminary investigations other explanations for these effects cannot be eliminated at this time. 7400

However, some of the more plausible hypotheses involve a potential role of pesticide exposure 7401

and some neurological outcomes in adults such as Parkinson ’s disease (PD) and general 7402

neurological health (discussed below). To the extent that the proposed changes to WPS rules 7403

reduce chronic exposure to pesticides, they may reduce the incidence of these chronic health 7404

effects as well. 7405

7406

Neurological Function 7407

7408

The possible connection between pesticide use and symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD) has 7409

spurred a great deal of research. Using the AHS cohort, Kamel et al ., (2007), investigated the 7410

hypothesis that PD is associated with pesticide exposure. Study partic ipants included licensed 7411

private pesticide applicators and spouses, enrolled in the AHS from 1993 through 1997 and 7412

contacted for a follow

- up study from 1999 through 2003. They report a positive association of 7413

PD in those who reported ever using pesticides, and a “strong association” with PD for those 7414

who personally applied pesticides. Cumulative lifetime days of use was associated with a dose

7415

response relationship in cases diagnosed after the beginning of the study, but there was no 7416

association with a dose

- response function and cases diagnosed prior to the study. This study has 7417

recently been updated with physician

- diagnosed cases of PD, as opposed to participant self

7418

reporting of PD, and authors reported statistically significant 2.5

- fold increased odds of PD if 7419

participants used either paraquat or rotenone (Tanner et al ., 2011). 7420

7421

In a review study on the non

- cancer effects of pesticides mentioned earlier, Sanborn et al . (2007) 7422

evaluated prior work on the association between Parkinson’s symptoms and pesticid e exposure, 7423

and reported a positive association in 15 out of the 26 studies reviewed. The authors conclude 7424

that these studies “provide remarkably consistent evidence of a relationship between PD and past 7425

exposures of pesticides on the job.” 7426

7427

Sanborn et al . (2007) examined the non

- cancer health effects of pesticides in a review, and found 7428

most (39/41) studies displayed a positive increase in one or more neurological abnormalities in 7429

association with pesticide exposure. These outcomes ranged from neurodevelo pmental effects in 7430205 preschool children, general malaise and mild cognitive function, minor psychological morbidity, 7431

depression, suicide and death from mental disorders (Sanborn et al ., 2007). Kamel et al

., 7432

(2007a), using the AHS cohort, found associations between neurological symptoms and lifetime 7433

pesticide exposure, with the greatest association for organophosphate pesticides. 7434

7435

In a study of the neurobehavioral performance in agricultural and nonagricultural Hispanic 7436

workers, Rothlein et al ., (2006) examin ed the possible neurobehavioral effects of low

- level 7437

chronic organophosphate pesticide exposure. Residues of these pesticides were found in a 7438

substantial portion of workers’ homes. A significant correlation was observed between urinary 7439

metabolite levels an d total organophosphate house dust levels. Poor performance on five 7440

neurobehavioral tests was associated with higher levels of the average combined thiomethyl 7441

metabolites in adult farmworkers. According to the authors, the correlation found between 7442

environ mental contamination and levels of urinary metabolites further demonstrates the take

7443

home pathway of pesticide exposure and the need for better home hygiene practices. 7444

7445

Research on the neurological effects of pesticide exposure continues. Three recent studies 7446

(Rauh et al. , 2011 ; Engel et al. , 2011 ; and Bouchard et al. , 2011) have investigated the 7447

relationship between prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides including chlorpyrifos and 7448

neurological effects in children through the age of 7 years. A nother recent study (Rohlman et 7449

al ., 2011), reviews the possible relationship between adult occupational exposure to pesticides 7450

and adverse neurological symptoms. T he authors acknowledge uncertainties present in the data 7451

at this time which limit causal in ference including a clear biologically plausible mechanism of 7452

action, among other study characteristics. 7453

7454

Respiratory Function 7455

7456

Several studies have shown linkages with both permanent and transitory (but chronic) respiratory 7457

effects. Asthma is a temporary inflammation of the lungs, often caused by an environmental 7458

trigger, which leads to coughing, wheezing and shortness of breath. Although the symptoms of 7459

asthma last for minutes or days, being susceptible to asthma attacks is a lifelong problem, and 7460

several studies have shown an association between pesticide exposure and asthma. Hoppin et 7461

al ., (2008) reported an association between pesticide exposure to a range of pesticides and 7462

asthma in farm women, despite the fact that growing up on a farm reduced the likelihood of 7463

asthma attacks. This study focuses on the spouses of pesticide applicators and may show an 7464

important effect from gen eralized agricultural pesticide exposure to families and farmworker s

, 7465

rather than exposure as a pesticide applicator. An association has been reported for children, as 7466

well. Salam et al ., (2004) describe a range of risk factors related to childhood asthm a. Among 7467

those risk factors were pesticides, and other farm exposures. The effects were largest for children 7468

with early onset asthma. An i nternational study on childhood exposure to pesticides in Lebanon 7469

(Salameh et al ., 2003) also reports a relationship b etween exposure and respiratory symptoms. 7470

7471

Studies have also reported an association between pesticide exposure and chronic bronchitis, an 7472

inflammation of the air passages of the lungs. While acute bronchitis usually has symptoms over 7473

a short term, chronic bronchitis is a recurring chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that makes 7474

it difficult to breathe for months at a time, with coughing that expels sputum from the airways. 7475

Hoppin et al . (2007) reports a statistically significant association between eleve n pesticides and 7476206 chronic bronchitis among the AHS cohort

– an association that was stronger among those with a 7477

high pesticide exposure event. 7478

7479



### 6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks 7480

7481

Overall, epidemiological or human study data do not suggest a clear cause

- effect relation 7482

between specific pesticide exposure and certain chronic health outcomes . However , the totality 7483

of national and international research efforts and initial research results in conjunction with 7484

plausible hypotheses, taken together, suggest th at pesticide exposure may result in chronic 7485

adverse health effects beyond those mitigated as a result of chemical

- specific label requirements 7486

and standards. 7487

7488



### 6.7. Non

- Quantified Benefit s of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks 7489

7490

The proposed changes to the WPS are designed to reduce occupational exposure to all pesticides, 7491

as well as reduce the non

- occupational exposure to the families of workers and handlers. There 7492

is sufficient evidence in the peer

- reviewed literature to suggest that reducing pesticide exposure 7493

would result in a benefit to public health through reduced chronic illness (Section 6.6 above). In 7494

general, while there is sufficient evidence to suggest associations between exposure and illness, 7495

the literature does not provide sufficient data to quantif y health effects of specific pesticides for 7496

use in a benefits analysis. The totality of findings suggests the proposed WPS changes are a 7497

way to reduce overall pesticide exposure, which will result in an overall benefit to occupational 7498

health. 7499

7500

The healt h effects potentially caused by occupational pesticide exposure can have dramatic 7501

effects on the health and welfare of workers and handlers who suffer these diseases. These 7502

illnesses do not only affect those who become ill, but they also may require exten sive caregiving 7503

by family members or others. It is also important not to underestimate the effects on those 7504

stricken with illness. Parkinson’s disease, for example is a progressive disease characterized by 7505

tremors, rigidity and stiffness of the limbs, ins tability and falling, all of which result in difficulty 7506

performing everyday functions (Parkinson’s Disease Foundation). Non

- Hodgkins lymphoma is 7507

a cancer that starts in the immune system, with symptoms of s wollen lymph nodes, weight loss, 7508

fever, weakness, respiratory distress, drenching night sweats, and pain. Treatment for NHL, has 7509

a range of side effects that can also generate substantial symptoms (National Cancer Institute, 7510

2007). In addition to the symptoms of NHL and the treatment, the disease is of ten fatal. The 7511

five year survival rate for NHL is only 70.2%, meaning that almost 30% of people diagnosed 7512

with NHL in 2003 died within five years (National Cancer Institute, 2011). 7513

7514

Because of the uncertainties in the number of illnesses that may be cause d by, and therefore 7515

prevented by reduced pesticide exposure, it is impossible to derive quantified estimates of 7516

pesticide

- specific benefits from illness reduction. In the U.S., health care costs for chronic 7517

disease are great, in addition to the direct hu man cost of illness mentioned in the previous 7518

paragraph. The additional medical costs for a patient suffering from Parkinson’s disease have 7519

been estimated at over $10,000 annually (Huse et al ., 2005). NHL treatment costs have been 7520

estimated at over $5,800 monthly for aggressive NHL, and over $3,800 monthly for slower

- 7521207 growing NHL (Kutikova, et al. ) For prostate cancer, average cost of treatment over 5 and half 7522

years of the study was over $42,500 (Wilson et al. ). These costs are very high, especiall y so 7523

relative to the income for workers and handlers, and the value of reducing these illnesses is likely 7524

to be substantial, as well. These costs are treatment costs, which is likely an under

- estimate of 7525

the true cost of illness. 7526

7527

The next section detai ls the break

- even analysis methodology, which considers the value of 7528

potentially preventing some of these illnesses, using estimates of the willingness

- to

- pay to avoid 7529

illness or death

. 7530

7531



### 6.8. Break

- Even Benefit Analysis of Avoiding Potential Chronic Risks 7532

7533

I n this section, EPA presents a “break

- even” analysis. This analysis shows that preventing a 7534

very small number of illnesses potentially associated with pesticide exposure could result in 7535

benefits to human health equal to or greater than the difference betw een the quantified benefits 7536

and the estimated costs of the rule. As described below, preventing only a few pesticide

- related 7537

illnesses annually , less than one percent of the cases of a handful of diseases, would generate 7538

enough in benefits to close the ga p between the estimated cost of the WPS changes and the 7539

quantified estimate of benefits from reduced acute exposures. The break

- even number of cases 7540

is quite low, because the diseases under consideration can have severe effects which persist over 7541

a long p eriod of time, and the cost of health care is great. For this exercise, we consider non

7542

Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung cancer, bronchitis, Parkinson’s disease and asthma 7543

to demonstrate the potential benefits in the proposed rule from reducing e xposures to chronic 7544

illnesses. These are the illnesses for which there is evidence of an association with pesticide 7545

exposure and for which credible willingness to pay estimates exist in the peer

- reviewed literature 7546

or may be transferred. 7547



### 6.8.1. Background 7548

7549

The break

- even approach uses EPA’s estimates of monetized benefits for reduced acute 7550

exposures, and subtracts them from the estimated annual compliance costs of the proposed rule. 7551

The resulting “net cost” enables one to work backwards to estimate what the benefits from 7552

reduced chronic exposure would need to be for the total annual benefits of chronic illness 7553

reduction to equal costs. A break

- even analysis is a useful alternative when quantifiable data are 7554

lacking (OMB

, 2003 )

. Although we cannot quantify net benefits of chronic disease avoided, we 7555

can estimate the number of cases that would need to be prevented by WPS changes to cause the 7556

net benefits to become positive. This estimate then can be assessed for plausibility. It can also 7557

be a useful step to ensure that unquantifiable benefits, like reduced chronic exposures to 7558

pesticides, are not ignored when weighing costs and benefits. 7559

7560

Break

- even analyses have been used by EPA in the past when monetized estimates of all benefits 7561

could not be estimated. The analyses in support of several rules from the EPA Office of Water 7562

used this approach to highlight benefits that could not be quantified ( EPA, 2011; EPA

, 2010 b ; 7563

EPA

, 20 0 6 c ; EPA 2005). For these cases, the break

- even analyses were based on prevented 7564

il lness or fatalities when the number of illnesses or fatalities could not be estimated, similar to 7565

what is done here. These examples have most often reflected acute health effects with a known 7566208 causal link to an environmental exposure, e.g. , gastrointestinal distress as a result of bacterial 7567

contamination of water. The break

- even analysis here is based on associations between pesticide 7568

exposure and chronic disease, where causal links are considered in the peer

- reviewed literature 7569

(see Section 6.7). 7570

7571

The costs of environmental regulations are traditionally much simpler to quantify than benefits to 7572

health or the environment. Costs of equipment, time to train and build knowledge can be easily 7573

estimated. However, environmental or human health benefits are of ten difficult to quantify due 7574

to data limitations, as noted above, or the non

- pecuniary nature of these benefits. However, as 7575

noted in Section 6.5 the human epidemiology research reporting links between pesticide 7576

exposure and human health outcomes indicat es that some degree of public health benefits will 7577

likely accrue as a result of pesticide exposure reduction from changes to the WPS. 7578

7579

Ideally, EPA could quantitatively estimate the public health benefit of pesticide exposure 7580

reduction through updated WPS requirements through reduced disease burden. However, we are 7581

unable to quantify the benefits from reducing chronic health effects for several reasons. While 7582

exposure reduction is an anticipated outcome from the WPS rule, it is difficult to quantify the 7583

mag nitude of the exposure reduction because the interventions are indirect

, i. e.

, they influence 7584

behavior associated with pesticide safety practices . Similarly, while statistical associations have 7585

been observed in studies which estimate the relation between pesticide exposure and chronic 7586

health outcomes such as cancer, as noted in Section 6.5, the causal nature of these associations 7587

have not yet been determined; thus calculating attributable risk, or the magnitude of the chronic 7588

health risk reduction expected as a result of pesticide exposure reduction, is premature at this 7589

time. It is likely that pesticide exposure may be one of multiple risk factors for certain disease 7590

outcomes in the population ( i.e. , there is a multi

- factorial web of disease causation), ho wever it is 7591

plausible that some instances of disease (specific cases) could be attributable to pesticide 7592

exposure. Epidemiological research is particularly difficult when the subjects are farmworkers 7593

and their families. Relative to other studies of the e ffects of occupational exposure to chemicals, 7594

studies based on farmworkers are more difficult because it is harder to estimate exposure to 7595

specific pesticides, because they were not applied by the worker, and may not have been applied 7596

by the handler (Zahm and Blair, 2001 and 1993). Exposure estimation through work history is 7597

also difficult with this mobile population, making it harder to identify exposure based on 7598

available application data (Zahm et al ., 2001, Zahm and Blair 1993). 7599

7600

The break

- even analysis is meant for illustrative purposes. The analysis is designed to 7601

demonstrate the magnitude of potential health risk reduction which would be necessary to 7602

equilibrate the total WPS costs using traditional and conservative assumptions from the 7603

environmental economics peer

- reviewed literature. 7604

7605

In Section 6.6, EPA presented a review of the epidemiology literature in which authors report 7606

observations between pesticide exposure and certain chronic health effects. Included in that 7607

discussion is information on t he Agricultural Health Study (AHS), a large prospective cohort 7608

study of about 90,000 farmers and their spouses initiated in the early 1990’s. The study is 7609

recognized for its design and robustness, with exposure measurements that have been extensively 7610

vali dated. Because of these characteristics and strengths, it is appropriate to use the results and 7611

findings of this study in evaluating pesticide risks. OPP has been systematically evaluating this 7612209 study in collaborative projects with the AHS investigators wi th respect to algorithms, exposure 7613

assumptions, and other critical information. OPP is developing a framework for interpreting 7614

epidemiological data and integrating the results into the overall data that is grounded in sound 7615

scientific principles and use o f Bradford Hill criteria for evidence of causation. The work 7616

products and ideas that OPP has generated and presented have been well received by recent 7617

Scientific Advisory Panels and various stakeholders. These data inform hazard identification and 7618

charact erization, although exposure profiles and use practices have changed over time such that 7619

past and current exposures differ from current and future pesticide practices. Therefore, while 7620

studies such as the AHS are helpful for hazard characterization, additi onal information outside of 7621

any one epidemiology study may be needed to assess current, real

- world exposure potential. The 7622

putative associations suggested in epidemiology studies like the AHS can help in evaluating 7623

potential health outcomes associated with exposures and assist in conducting an economic 7624

evaluation of possible benefits from reducing exposure through an enhanced worker protection 7625

standard. 7626

7627



### 6.8.2. Method 7628

7629

For the acute estimates earlier in this chapter, the number of cases prevented was found by 7630

eval uating descriptions of the incidents that led to the pesticide exposure. For this break

- even 7631

analysis of the chronic exposure, the number of cases prevented will not be known. At the end 7632

of the process we will search for the percentage of cases that must be prevented for the benefits 7633

to exceed the costs, and consider whether the number of cases reduced is plausible for the 7634

farmworker and handler population. For simplicity, we will generally assume the same rate 7635

reduction for all diseases and their fatal effects, if any, although it is likely that different 7636

exposure

- response profiles exist for specific pesticide

- chronic health effect association. 7637

7638

As discussed in Section 6.6, there are many health effects that may be associated with chronic, 7639

non

- specific pesticide exposure. For this break

- even exercise, however, we will consider only a 7640

few illnesses associated with chronic pesticide exposure: non

- Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate 7641

cancer, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, Parkinson’s disease and asthma. Nume rous 7642

observational studies have been performed evaluating pesticide exposure in association with 7643

these human health outcomes. While scientific consensus has not established these associations 7644

as causal in nature, evidence is suggestive of an association. F or illustrative purposes, these 7645

health outcomes are identified for the break

- even analysis. 7646

7647

It should be emphasized that the diseases (cancer, neurological diseases, and pulmonary effects) 7648

included here are chosen as representatives of the range of disea ses that may result from chronic 7649

exposure to pesticides. For example, there are a range of other cancers for which studies have 7650

shown an association in farmworkers (Mills and Yang, 2006a, 2006b), but the associations may 7651

not be as strong as the ones we ha ve included here largely due to challenges of performing 7652

observational studies in the farm worker population. 7653

7654

To estimate the break

- even number of prevented cases, we will begin with national data on 7655

disease incidence, which describes how many cases of disease can be expected to be diagnosed 7656

each year. 7657

7658210 Next, we need an estimate of the benefit of reduced illness. EPA’s preferred approach is to use 7659

an estimate of “willingness to pay” (WTP) to reduce the risk of experiencing an illness (US 7660

Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). As described in Freeman (2003), this measure 7661

consists of four components: 7662

7663

• “Averting costs” to reduce the risk of illness; 7664

• “Mitigating costs” for treatments such as medical care and medication; 7665

• Indirect costs such a s lost time from paid work, maintaining a home, and pursuing leisure 7666

activities; and 7667

• Less easily measured but equally real costs of discomfort, anxiety, pain, and suffering. 7668

7669

WTP represents the amount of money that an individual or group would pay to recei ve the 7670

benefits resulting from a policy change, without being made worse off. There are other values 7671

excluded by using WTP as the metric. WTP is usually characterized as a WTP for improved 7672

health outcomes for oneself, which is true here, as well. This d oes ignore that people may also 7673

value the health of others, and place some value on seeing others protected, especially when they 7674

are a disadvantaged population, like farmworkers. These altruistic benefits are not included in 7675

the WTP estimates presented h ere. 7676

7677

Typically WTP estimates will vary by the type of disease, because of differing health 7678

consequences and differing amounts of dread the disease imparts in the study subjects. For 7679

example, WTP may be higher to avoid a fatality from cancer than from a car accident. For many 7680

non

- fatal diseases, direct estimates for WTP are not available. In these cases, we will use 7681

benefits transfer to find estimates. This involves applying available estimates of WTP for 7682

preventing illness to the relevant ones for th e WPS changes, adjusting them if needed. 7683

7684

For cases of fatalities prevented, we value the benefits with the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL). 7685

EPA currently recommends a default central “value of statistical life” (VSL) of $7.9 million (in 7686

2008 dollars) to value reduced mortality for all programs and policies. This value is based on a 7687

distribution fitted to 26 published VSL estimates (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). 7688

7689

The benefits for preventing chronic illness are simply the sum across illn esses of the value of 7690

prevention times the number of prevented cases, which are the prevented share ( PrevShare ) 7691

times the number of cases: 7692

where ω i can be WT P for avoided illness i and VSL for avoided fatalities. To perform the 7693

break

- even analysis, the goal is to find the PrevShare that causes Chronic Benefits to be greater 7694

than or equal to the difference between the cost estimates of the rule and the estimated acute 7695

benefits. The break

- even point is where the benefits of the chronic equal the gap between the 7696

estimated cost ( Cost ) and the estimated acute benefits ( Acute ): 7697

7698211 The final step, then, is to find the prevented share that makes Chronic Benefits at least equal to 7699

the difference between the estimated costs and acute benefits, Chronic BE . A simplifying 7700

assumption is that PrevShare i is equal for al l diseases, which means that the percentage 7701

reduction in illness is the same. We do that here, with one exception: lung cancer. The primary 7702

cause of lung cancer is smoking tobacco. Although other environmental exposures combine with 7703

tobacco smoke to inc rease the risk of lung cancer, any changes to the WPS are likely to have 7704

little effect on cancer caused by smoking. For that reason, we assume that the PrevShare Lung 7705

Cancer is 10% of the PrevShare for other diseases. This reduced rate is the lower end of the 7706

estimated 10

– 15% of lung cancers found in people who have never smoked (Thun et al. , 2008). 7707

7708



### 6.8.3. Data 7709

7710

To perform the break

- even analysis described in the previous section, we need information on 7711

the number of illnesses annually for these diseases and the WTP to avoid suffering the illness. 7712

The cost of the rule was estimated in Chapter 5 and the quantified acute benefits of the rule were 7713

estimated in Section 6.5. The number of illnesses is available in the literature or publicly 7714

available. E stimates of WTP are from the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants 7715

and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA, 2005) except for the WTP to avoid asthma, the estimate 7716

for which is taken from the academic literature (O’Conor and Blomquist, 1997). The data used 7717

in the analysis are summarized in Table 6.8

- 1. 7718

7719

Non

- Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 7720

7721

The American Cancer Society ( 2012) estimates there are just over 70,000 new cases annually of 7722

non

- Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system. Of these cases, 30% (about 7723

21,000) result in death (American Cancer Society 2012, based on Howlader et al ., 2011). An 7724

estimate of t he WTP for reducing a case of non

- fatal lymphoma of $4.6 m illion was derived in 7725

the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule 7726

(EPA 2005). The estimate was based on Magat et al . (1996), from which it was determi ned that 7727

the median risk

- risk trade

- off for contracting a curable case of lymphoma was equivalent to a 7728

58.3 percent reduction in the risk of sudden death. Thus, WTP for non

- fatal lymphoma was 7729

calculated as 58.3 percent of the VSL. Given the current estim ate of VSL of $7.9 million, we 7730

estimate a mean WTP for non

- fatal lymphoma of $4.6 million (VSL × 58.3%). 7731

7732

Prostate Cancer 7733

7734

Prostate cancer is a common cancer among American men and the second leading cause of 7735

cancer deaths behind lung cancer. Based on CDC data from 2003

– 2007 (U.S. Cancer 7736

Statistics Working Group, 2010), there were about 203,000 cases of prostate cancer per year, 7737

on average. The number of cases has been trending upward, with about 223,000 cases 7738

reported in 2007. The American Cancer Soci ety (2012) estimates that there will be 241,740 7739

cases in 2012. In addition, CDC reports about 29,000 fatalities resulting from prostate cancer 7740

on average, where fatalities have been declining (U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group, 7741

2010). For this analysi s, we use the relatively conservative figures of 223,000 non

- fatal 7742

cases and 29,000 fatal cases of prostate cancer. In the Agricultural Health Study, although 7743212 overall cancer incidence (all cancers combined) is lower than the general population, the 7744

inciden ce of prostate cancer is consistently higher than the general population (Alavanja et 7745

al ., 2003; Koutros et al

. , 2010 a ). 7746

7747

An estimate of WTP to avoid curable prostate cancer is not available in the literature. 7748

Therefore, we base our estimates on the WTP to avoid lymphoma. Prostate cancer, however, 7749

is both a more common and less severe cancer than lymphoma, so a lower value for WTP is 7750

appropriate. We estimate WTP to avoid pros tate cancer as a fraction of the WTP for curable 7751

lymphoma based on the ratio of treatment costs for the two diseases. Wilson et al . (2006) 7752

estimates the average annual treatment cost for prostate cancer to be $7,740. Based on 7753

Kutikova et al . (2006), the t reatment costs for indolent non

- Hodgkin’s lymphoma are just 7754

under $46,000 per year, so the cost of treatment for prostate cancer is 17% of that for non

7755

Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Using that percentage multiplied by the WTP to avoid lymphoma 7756

yields an estimate of WTP to avoid prostate cancer of $780,000. 7757

7758

This figure may be an underestimate. It is based on the treatment cost for prostate cancer that 7759

may be low, considering several new treatment and drug regimes that are very expensive

. 7760

Further , some prostate c ancers, particularly those that affect younger men, may be more 7761

aggressive and require more expensive treatment t han those found in elderly men. 7762

7763

Chronic Bronchitis 7764

7765

Chronic bronchitis is one of the forms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, in which 7766

bronchial tubes of the lungs are inflamed, and results in a long

- term cough, shortness of breath, 7767

excessive mucous, fatigue and wheezing, eventually severely restricting mobility and quality of 7768

life (US National Library of Medicine, 2012). 7769

7770

Chronic bro nchitis is common, with 9.9 million diagnoses a year (Centers for Disease 7771

Control, 2012a), but only a few deaths per year (639 from the same source). These figures 7772

are misleading, because the CDC criteri on for a diagnosis is that a patient has been identif ied 7773

within the previous 12 months with chronic bronchitis by a physician. The 9.9 million 7774

diagnoses are more likely to reflect the number of patients with the disease, rather than new 7775

cases that occur in a given year. We have been unable to find good est imates for the 7776

incidence of the chronic bronchitis, and using the prevalence would be misleading, so for this 7777

analysis, we will only include the few fatalities. This is disappointing, because reduced lung 7778

function can have important impacts on quality of life, and past EPA economic analysis has 7779

provided estimates of the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis. The Economic Analysis for the 7780

Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA 2005) did provide 7781

estimates of the WTP of $800,000 to avoid chronic bronchitis, based on Viscusi et al. (1991). 7782

7783

Parkinson’s Disease 7784

7785

Parkinson’s disease, a progressive neurological disease is diagnosed about 60,000 times annually 7786

(Parkinson’s Disease Foundation 2010). Parkinson’s patients have higher mortality r ates than 7787

the general population and the CDC classifies Parkinson’s disease as the 14 th leading cause of 7788213 death in the United States 8 , but any death is usually an indirect result of Parkinson’s disease. 7789

The progressive neurological effects of Parkinson’s, such as swallowing problems which lead to 7790

undernourishment and higher risk for aspiration pneumonia, can reduce longevity (Parkinson’s 7791

Disease Foundation 2010 and University of Maryland Medical Center 2009). Because of these 7792

complications, we take a conse rvative approach in this break

- even analysis, and ignore the 7793

fatalities for Parkinson’s disease. Similarly, there was no available estimate of WTP to avoid 7794

Parkinson’s disease. We propose to use the WTP for chronic bronchitis (above) for the WTP for 7795

Parki nson’s disease, because in some ways the effects on quality of life are similar: restricted 7796

mobility, difficulty in everyday tasks and activity, for example. The WTP to avoid chronic 7797

bronchitis is $800,000, which we will use for Parkinson’s disease. 7798

7799

Th ere are reasons to think this value is an underestimate. First, chronic bronchitis can be treated, 7800

and sometimes cured, while Parkinson’s disease is a permanent and progressive disease. Second, 7801

there are other values we could use for benefits transfer in this case. The WTP for lymphoma 7802

above was based on a study by Magat et al . (1996), which compared risk

- risk tradeoffs for 7803

curable disease and death, in that case for lymphoma. That same study also included a non

7804

cancer disease, peripheral neuropathy. P eripheral neuropathy is damage to the peripheral 7805

nervous system that shares some effects with Parkinson’s disease, such as loss of strength, 7806

reduced mobility, and activity restrictions. Using the method EPA used for estimating WTP for 7807

avoiding lymphoma, w ould result in an estimate of WTP to avoid peripheral neuropathy of about 7808

$3 million. To be conservative, we use the smaller value of $800,000 here. Moreover, possible 7809

fatalities of Parkinson’s disease are not included in the analysis. 7810

7811

Lung Cancer 7812

7813

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, and the third most 7814

common cancer after prostate and breast cancer (Center for Disease Control, United States 7815

Cancer Statistics , 2012). In 2012, the CDC expects about 226,000 new case s of lung cancer to 7816

be reported. Death resulting from lung cancer is very common, with the five year survival rate 7817

of only 15.9% (National Cancer Institute, 2012). Both the incidence and number of deaths from 7818

lung cancer have been trending down slightly over time (National Cancer Institute, 2012). 7819

Recent data suggest an estimate of 190,000 annual cases that will result in a fatality within a few 7820

years, and 36,000 survivable cases. As mentioned above (Section 6.8.2), we will assume that 7821

lung cancer preve ntions happen at 10% of the rate for the other diseases for this analysis, which 7822

roughly corresponds to the share of lung cancer among non

- smokers. This is because changes to 7823

the WPS are not expected to have large changes on cancers caused by the primary risk factor, 7824

which is smoking. 7825

7826

There are no estimates of WTP for reducing the number of cases of lung cancer in the peer

7827

reviewed literature that are appropriate for this rule. Therefore, we follow the practice in the 7828

analysis for EPA’s Radon in Drinking Water Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (1999) 7829

and transfer the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis as a measure of the WTP to avoid non

- fatal 7830

lung cancer. This will be the same value ($800,000) used for Parkinson’s disease, because they 7831

8 There were 20,058 fatalities attributed to Parkinson’s disease by the Centers for Disease Control in 2007 (Xu et al

., 2010).214 come from the same source, the WTP to avoid chronic bronchitis from the Economic Analysis 7832

for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA 2005) 9

. 7833

7834

Asthma 7835

7836

Atopic asthma, in which an external trigger, such as dust or an allergen, causes periodi c 7837

difficulty in breathing and airway blockage (Akinbami et al ., 2012) , is another common 7838

respiratory ailment that has been associated with pesticide exposure (Hoppin et al ., 2008)). 7839

Asthma is very common, with 24.6 million people diagnosed by 2009 (Centers for Disease 7840

Control, 2012b). That figure reflects people who have been diagnosed over several years, and 7841

asthma does not necessarily occur every year, even though it is a chronic disease. CDC 7842

estimates that number of asthma cases grew by 4.3 million from 2001 through 2009 (Centers for 7843

Disease Control, 2011). Using that number, this analysis will assume new cases of asthma are 7844

478,000 annually, which is the rounded numb er of new cases from 2001

– 2009 divided by nine 7845

years. Asthma attacks can also be fatal

– in 2009, there were 3,388 deaths caused by asthma 7846

(Centers for Disease Control, 2012c). We will round that figure to 3,400 cases per year for this 7847

analysis. 7848

7849

T he WTP for avoiding asthma is based on O’Conor and Blomquist (1997). Using a 3% discount 7850

rate to transform their annual estimate for WTP of $2,200 to a perpetuity to represent preventing 7851

development of asthma over a lifetime yields a WTP to prevent asthma of about $73,000 per 7852

case 10

. 7853

7854

7 Cameron, DeShazo and Johnson (2009) provides estimates for reducing risks of lung cancer, both immediately

fatal (called “sudden death” in the paper) and wit h a 10 year latency period for 3 different age groups. WTP for

sudden death from lung cancer ranges from $220,000 to $950,000 and for the latent disease the estimates range

from $40,000 to $2.36 million. This study is not yet published and therefore the results are used here for

illustrative purposes only. Hammitt and Liu (2004) provide estimates for WTP to reduce lung cancer risk in a

Taiwanese population. Estimates are $1.5 to $1.6 million for latent illness and $2.1 to $2.2 million for acute.

Becaus e the estimates are for a non

- US population they are also used here for illustrative purposes only. Finally,

Itaoka, et al. (2007) provide estimates for reducing lung cancer in a Japanese population. Again, this is a working

paper and therefore illustrat ive only.

10 Other sources for WTP for asthma are available. Blomquist, Dickie, and O’Conor (2011) provide more recent

estimates of between $1,700 and $4,000 for WTP, although that study focuses on age effects on WTP.215 Table 6.8

- 1. Information for Calculating Break

- Even Number of Cases Avoided 7855

Disease WTP to Avoid

Disease, ω i ($1000) Annual Cases

Curable Non

- Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 4,606 49,000

Fatal NHL 7,900 21,000

Curable Prostate Cancer 780 223,000

Fatal Prostate Cancer 7,900 29,000

Parkinson’s Disease 800 60,000

Curable Lung Cancer 800 36,000

Fatal Lung Cancer 7,900 190,000

Fatal Bronchitis 7,900 640

Asthma 73 480,000

Fatal Asthma 7,900 3,400

Source: EPA, 2005; American Cancer Society (2012); U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group (2010);

Parkinson’s Disease Foundation (2010); National Cancer Institute (2012); Centers for Disease Control,

(2012a, 2012c); O’Conor and Blumquist (1997); EPA calculations

7856



### 6.8.4. Break

- Even Estimation 7857

7858

In Chapter 5, the costs of proposed WPS changes were estimated to be between $ 6 2

. 1 million 7859

and $ 72.9 million per year. To find the break

- even point, we need to find the reduction in illness 7860

that closes the gap between the estimated costs and the quantified acute benefits. For this 7861

analysis, we will report a reduction in illness that generates benefits of at least the di fference 7862

between the high value of the estimated costs ($ 7 2

. 9 million ) and estimated acute benefits of 7863

$11. 4 million , for a difference between estimated costs and quantified benefits of $ 61.5 million

. 7864

7865

Reducing the national rate of these illnesses by 0.0 0 6 % (and the rate of lung cancer by 0.000 6 %) 7866

is more than enough to provide benefits from reduced chronic illness that close the high estimate 7867

of the gap between costs and quantified benefits. This reduction in illness would have an 7868

estimated benefit of $ 64.6 million dollars annually. The results here obviously change based on 7869

assumptions about under

- reporting of acute pesticide incidents, because that changes the estimate 7870

of acute benefits. If we were to assume that there was no underreporting, then the acute benefits 7871

estimate would be about $2.8 million (See Table 6.5

– 1 1 ). In that case, a reduction of 0.007% 7872

(0.000 7% for lung cancer) would suffice, since the estimated $7 5.3 million in benefits is more 7873

than the total high

- end costs estimate of $ 72.9 m illion. . The reduction to break

- even with only 7874

$2.8 millio n in acute benefits is about 0.006 5 %, and about 0.00 59% to break even with a gap of 7875

$ 61.5 million. 7876

7877

Reducing the rate of illnesses through pesticide exposure reduction by 0.00 6 % would reduce the 7878

nu mber of non

- Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases by an average of 2. 94 non

- fatal and 1. 26 fatal cases 7879

per year; the number of prostate cancer cases by an average of 13.38 non

- fatal and 1. 74 fatal 7880

cases per year; the number of Parkinson’s cases by 3 .6 per year; reduce the number of fatal 7881

bronchitis cases by 0.0 4 per year , and the number of cases of asthma by 2 8.8 cases , and fatal 7882

asthma cases by 0. 20 per year . Reducing the number of lung cancer cases by 10% of the 7883216 reduction in other diseases, or 0.000 6 %

, reduces the number of lung cancer cases by an average 7884

of 0. 22 non

- fatal cases and 1.14 fatal cases per year

. 7885

7886

Of course, those percentage reductions are based on the number of chronic illness cases 7887

nationally, and the WPS changes will primarily effect a mu ch smaller population, farmworkers 7888

and handlers. Although the number of cases reduced to generate break

- even chronic benefits 7889

will not change, they will represent a higher percentage of illness among this smaller population, 7890

which we describe below. 7891

7892

It is reasonable to think that incidence rates of these diseases may be higher for the agricultural 7893

community than the general public, because of the associations between pesticide exposure and 7894

disease described above and in Section 6.5. However, we do not m ake that assumption here. 7895

Instead, we assume that the worker/handler face illness equal to their share of the population. 7896

The share is about 0. 7 5%, based on the 2,32 3

, 000 farmworkers and a U.S. population of 7897

308,700,000 (Census Bureau, 2011). Even so, th e reduction in cases among farmworkers 7898

required to reach the break

- even point is small in comparison to the number of expected cases

. 7899

A reduction in these illnesses of just under 0. 8 % (0.0 8 % for lung cancer ), will generate $ 64.8 7900

million in benefits , more than required to reach the break

- even point . Across all diseases, the 7901

reduction is about 53 cases annually out of over 8,000 cases that might occur . Table 6.8

- 2 shows 7902

the calculations for farmworker cases. The estimated farmworker cases are 0. 75 % of the annual 7903

cases for the United States, and the break

- even cases are the number of cases that prevented to 7904

reach the breakeven point

. In dollar terms the $64.8 million per year to break even represents an 7905

a nnual WTP per farmworker of less than $2 8. 7906

7907

T able 6.8

- 2: Illness Avoided among Farmworkers for “Break

- Even” Analysis 7908

Disease Annual

Cases Incidence

(per

100,000) 1 Annual Cases

Farmworkers 2 “Break

- Even”

Avoided Cases

Curable Non

- Hodgkin’s

Lymphoma 49,000 15.9 369 2.9 5

Fatal NHL 21,000 6.8 158 1.26

Curable Prostate Cancer 223,000 72.2 1, 678 13.42

Fatal Prostate Cancer 29,000 9.4 218 1.7 5

Parkinson’s Disease 60,000 19.4 451 3.61

Curable Lung Cancer 36,000 11.7 2 71 0. 2 2 3

Fatal Lung Cancer 190,000 61.5 1, 430 1

. 14 3

Fatal Bronchitis 640 3,207.0 5 0.0 4

Asthma 480,000 5,507.0 3

, 611 28

. 89

Fatal Asthma 3,400 1.1 2 6 0. 2 1

Source: EPA calculations.

1 C alculated as the number of annual cases divided by the U.S. population of 308,700,000 (US Census

Bureau, 2011).

2 B ased on incidence rates for farmworkers being equal to the nation as a whole. The actual incidence

rates may be higher; see the text.

3 Rate of R eduction for lung cancer is only 10% of the reduction rate for other illnesses; in this case a

reduction of 0.08% for lung cancer and 0.8% for the other diseases

7909217 It is important to consider whether the number of cases required for the break

- even analysis is 7910

plausible. As discussed above Table 6.8

- 2, the number of cases needed to reach the break

- even 7911

point is small relative to the number of cases we estimate in the farmworker population, even 7912

when we assume that their rate of disease is equal to the population at large. As discussed in 7913

Section 6.6, there is a possible association between the diseases discusse d here and pesticide 7914

exposure, so farmworkers exposed to pesticides may be more likely to develop these diseases. 7915

The next few paragraphs show that reducing rates of disease slightly will reach the break

- even 7916

point, even if rates for farmworkers are not r educed to the level of the general population. For 7917

this task, we will be using estimates of incidence rates of the three diseases, based on the AHS. 7918

The AHS cohort consists of certified pesticide applicators and their spouses. This cohort is 7919

healthier, better educated and wealthier than the farmworker population in general. Although 7920

farmworkers and the certified applicators in the AHS study both face occupational exposure to 7921

pesticides, the exposure pattern can be quite different: farmworkers may be mor e likely to be 7922

exposed in the field while engaged in activities other than applying pesticides. Pesticide 7923

handlers in the farmworker community do, however, share similar exposure potential to certified 7924

applicators on farms. Farmworkers may also be less a ware of when they may be exposed than 7925

are applicators and less knowledgeable about how to protect themselves against pesticide 7926

exposure than applicators who have gone through the certification process. Because of these 7927

differences in occupational exposure , it is unknown whether farmworker exposure is higher or 7928

lower than the AHS cohort. Using AHS results for estimating farmworker incidence rates 7929

implies that results are subject to considerable uncertainty , but there is no clear bias in these 7930

estimates. 7931

7932

For prostate cancer, Alavanja et al . (2003) reported a point estimate for the standardized 7933

incidence ratio of 1.14 for the AHS cohort with a confidence interval of 1.05 to 1.24 11 . Using 7934

the 1.14 point estimate means the AHS cohort was 1.14 times more like ly than the general 7935

population to develop prostate cancer, even though the overall rate of cancer is lower among the 7936

AHS population. 7937

7938

If we apply the 1.14 incidence ratio to farmworkers, that suggests farmworkers are 14% more 7939

likely to develop prostate cancer than the population in general. We estimated the incidence 7940

rates shown in Table 6.8

- 2 by dividing the number of cases per year by the U.S. pop u lation; for 7941

prostate cancer these were 223,000 cases a year that are treatable, and 29,000 that result i n death. 7942

Because only males get prostate cancer, the incidence rate among males is twice as high, with 7943

223,000 cases is about 144.5 per 100,000. If the incidence rate were 14% higher for 7944

farmworkers, it would be about 164.7 cases per 100,000. At the hi gher rate, we should expect 7945

about 1, 913 cases annually in the farmworker po p ulation , even if we assume that only half of 7946

farmworkers are men, which is an underestimate. 7947

7948

The break

- even number of cases of non

- fatal prostate cancer with a 0. 8 % reduction amon g 7949

farmworkers is 13.42 annually. To reach this level, the WPS changes would need to reduce the 7950

risk only slightly. To reach the reduction of 13.42 cases annually would require a reduction in 7951

the incidence rate from 164.70 to 16 3

. 55 , still well above the general population level. 7952

7953

11 Slightly higher incidence ratios have been found in more recent studies (Koutros, et al ., 2010a), but we use the

more conservative figures from Alavanja et al . here.218 A similar exercise can be done for fatal prostate cancers. The incidence rate for the general 7954

population of men is about 18.8 per 100,000. If farmworkers have a rate 14% higher, their rate 7955

would be about 21.4 p er 100,000, resulting in about 249 cases per year. The break

- even number 7956

of cases is about 1. 75 annually . To reach the high

- end reduction the incidence rate among 7957

farmworkers would fall from 21.4 to 21.3 per 100,000. This result is consistent across the 7958

diseases considered here: all of the reduction s in incidence rates among farmworkers are small, 7959

and with the exception of lung cancer and possibly chronic bronchitis, the reduced incidence 7960

rates remain higher than the general population. For NHL, Koutros et al. (201 0 a ) report a 7961

standardized incidence rate ratio of 1.17 among the AHS cohort for private applicators. We 7962

estimate the incidence rate for treatable NHL to be about 15.9 per 100,000, using the same 7963

procedure as for prostate cancer. If the incide nce among farmworkers was 17% higher, it would 7964

be about 18.6 per 100,000 . To reach the reduction of 2.95 cases annually would change the 7965

incidence ratio from about 18.57 to 18.4 4 per 100,000. For fatal NHL, the reduction in cases 7966

among farmworkers would reduce the estimated incidence rate from 7.96 to 7.9 0 per 100,000, 7967

still well above the rate we estimate for the general population of 6.8 per 100,000. For 7968

Parkinson’s disease, van der Mark l et al. (201 1 ) report an incidence ratio of 1.62 among the AHS 7969

co hort between those ever exposed to pesticides and those never exposed to pesticides. That 7970

corresponds to an incidence rate of about 31.5 per 100,000 for farmworkers, compared to 19.5 7971

among the general population. Reducing the number of cases to get to th e break

- even point 7972

among farmworkers would reduce the incidence rate to about 31. 3 per 100,000. Among farm 7973

women in the AHS, Hoppin et al . (2008) reported an incidence rate ratio for asthma to 1.46 for 7974

those with any pesticide exposure relative to those without. That yields an estimated incidence 7975

rate for farmworkers of about 227 per 100,000 for new asthma cases, compared to about 155 per 7976

100,000 for the general population. For fatal asthma, the estim ated incidence rate would be 7977

about 1.6 per 100,000 for farmworkers, compared to about 1.1 per 100,000 for the general 7978

population. Reducing cases to the break

- even point among farmworkers would reduce the 7979

estimated incidence rate for asthma from 227 to abo ut 226 per 100,000, while the fatal asthma 7980

incidence rate would remain unchanged at 1.6 per 100,000. As with the other diseases described 7981

above, even after reductions in cases among farmworkers to reach the break

- even point, the rate 7982

of these diseases amo ng farmworkers is likely to remain well above that for the general 7983

population. 7984

7985

As mentioned above, there may be two exceptions for which the farmworker incidence rates are 7986

higher than the general population, even after reduction to the break

- even point. The two 7987

exceptions are for chronic bronchitis and lung cancer. For chronic bron chitis, it is difficult to 7988

determine the correct rate among non

- smokers. Valcin et al. , (2007) analyzes chronic bronchitis 7989

among non

- smoking farm women in the AHS, and reports a prevalence at 60% higher in 7990

association with six specific pesticides, and 58 % higher with exposure to 3 or more pesticides, 7991

but does not compare them to a non

- agricultural cohort. Hoppin et al. (2007) reports an odds 7992

ratio for chronic bronchitis of 1.83 for AHS participants who have ever faced a high pesticide 7993

exposure event and elevated odds ratios for specific chemicals, but those are may not reflect the 7994

low

- level chronic exposure relevant for the break

- even analysis. However, if we assume the 7995

farmworker rate is even 1% higher than the general population we see the same pattern : the 7996

number of cases among farmworkers can be reduced to the breakeven point, yet the incidence 7997

rate is the same as the general population. Lung cancer does not fit the pattern of the other 7998

diseases here, because lung cancer rates are so low among the AH S cohort, less than half the rate 7999219 of the general population (Alavanja et al. , 2004). The AHS cohort is less likely to smoke and are 8000

generally healthier than the general population, although this may not hold true for farmworkers. 8001

If we reduce the number of cases among farmworkers by 0.0 8 % ( only 10% of the reduction for 8002

other diseases), the change in the estimated incidence rates for lung cancer are small, from 5.13 8003

to 5.12 cases per 100,000 for curable lung cancer, and from 27.08 to 27.0 3 per 100,000 for fatal 8004

lung cancer. 8005

8006

In general, the reductions in chronic illness required to close the gap between costs and 8007

quantified acute benefits from the rule are small. The reduction in cases relative to the 8008

farmworker population is plausible and it represents only a small change in the risk to 8009

farmworkers. 8010

8011

There are obviously many uncertainties, which is why the break

- even analysis is necessary. 8012

Relative to level of disease we might expect to see in the farmworker population, the break

- even 8013

point where the benefits of the rule equal the costs can be reached by preventing relatively few 8014

cases. One possible concern is that it is unclear when the prevented deaths would have occurred. 8015

These diseases discussed here are chronic conditions that may have long late ncy periods of 5

- 15 8016

years, i.e. , a substantial amount of time between exposure and diagnosis and eventual death. 8017

Using the estimates for farmworkers, discounting the VSL for 15 years at a 3% discount rate 8018

means the break even reduction would have to rise from 0.7% to 0. 98 %. At a 7% discount rate, 8019

the reduction to reach the break

- ev en point would reach 1. 20 %. 8020

8021



### 6.8.5. Break

- Even Conclusions 8022

8023

The break

- even analysis does show that preventing only a very small number of chronic illnesses 8024

can have very substantial be nefits. Based upon the best available information, this analysis 8025

demonstrates that a plausible reduction of about 53 pesticide

- related chronic illnesses per year 8026

across the entire WPS occupational population of 2.3 million workers is all that is required to 8027

ensure benefits outweigh the costs of the WPS. 8028

8029220 

## Chapter 7. Paperwork Burden 8030

8031

Associated with changes in the WPS requirements, the affected entities are subject to paperwork 8032

burden. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires federal agencies to estimate th e burden of 8033

complying with regulations that require firms or individuals to file reports, maintain records, or 8034

otherwise incur a paperwork burden. Agencies are likewise required to estimate their resources 8035

expended. Because of the substantial changes in WPS requirements, EPA developed a new 8036

Information Collection Request (ICR) entitled, “Worker Protection Standard Training and 8037

Notification (Proposed Rule)” (EPA ICR no. 2491.01; OMB Control No. 2070

- NEW, in 8038

conjunction with this action, using the same parameters and data as utilized in this Economic 8039

Analysis. See Appendix B. 8040

8041

The total estimated annual respondent burden for this ICR renewal for respondents is 8,355,847 8042

hours. This is an increase of 6,57 9,716 from the 1,776,131 total burden hours in the ICR 8043

approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 2070

- 0148

. The increase in burden is due to both 8044

program changes and adjustments made in assumptions and data used to calculate the time and 8045

frequency of required information exchange . The program changes include modifications to 8046

restrictions in field entry activities during restricted entry intervals; increased hazard 8047

communications; increased training (for both workers and handlers); increased posting of 8048

pestici de application information; provisions for information during emergency assistance; 8049

recordkeeping for respirator requirements and for workers performing early entry activities. 8050

Adjustments from the previous ICR are also made where appropriate, due to bett er information 8051

available on the number of respondents and updated wage rates. 8052

8053

The estimated burden represents the total to comply with the full WPS, including all proposed 8054

revisions and those that are unchanged by this proposal. This differs from the est imated 8055

incremental cost of the proposal, which only considers the net cost of the proposed revisions. 8056

8057

Respondent records are not required to be submitted to the Agency. They are to be retained on 8058

the establishment and accessible for inspection. 8059

8060

There is no change in the level of the Agency’s burden because neither the existing nor proposed 8061

rule imposes any requirements on the Agency. 8062

8063221 

## Accounting Statement 8064

8065

Rule Title: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions 8066



### Category Primary Estimate Minimum Estimate Maximum Estimate Source

BENEFITS

Monetized Benefits

• Monetized Benefits from

Avoided acute pesticide

incidents $ 5

– 1 4 million/year $ 1

. 2 million/year $28 million/year EA Chapter 6.5

• Qualitative Benefits • Willingness to pay to avoid acute effects of pesticide exposure beyond cost

of treatment and loss of productivity

.

• Reduced latent effect of avoided acute pesticide exposure

.

• Reduced chronic effects from lower chronic pesticide exposure to workers,

handlers, and farmworker families. EA Chapter 6

• Break

- even analysis of the

reduced effects of chronic

pesticide exposure • Annual chronic benefits necessary to break

- even $6 1

. 5 million

.

• Annual risk reduction needed to achieve break

- even point : less than 0. 8 %

among farmworkers.

• Annual break

- even WTP per farmworker : less than $2 8. EA Chapter 6. 8



### COSTS

Monetized Costs • $546

– 640 million

over 10 years at 3%

discount rate

• $62

– 73 million/year $ 39 million/year $ 75 million/year EA Chapter 5.2

Quantified Costs

Qualitative Costs



### TRANSFERS none

8067222 Category Effects Source

State, local, and/or tribal

governments None. State and tribal governments responsible for enforcement but

revisions will not change level of effort.

Small business No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

• The rule will affect over 200,000 small farms, nurseries, and greenhouses

and several hundred small commercial entit i es that are contracted to apply

pesticides.

• Impact less than 0.1% of the annual value of sales or revenues for the

average small entity. Highest anticipated impact less than 1% of annual

sales. EA Chapter 5.4

Impact on Jobs The rule will have a negligible effect on jobs and employment.

• The marginal cost of a typical farmworker is expected to increase $5/year.

• The marginal cost for a more skilled pesticide handler is expected to

increase by $ 60 , but this is about 0. 25 percent of the cost of a part

- time

employee. EA Chapter 5.3

8068223 

## References

Akinbami

, LJ, JE Moorman

, C Bailey

, HS Zahran, M King, CA Johnson, and X Liu

. 2012.

Trends in asthma prevalence, health care use, and mortality in the United States, 2001

–

2010

. NCHS data brief, no 94. National Center for He alth Statistics, Hyattsville, MD.

At http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db94.pdf

.

Alavanja, MC, M Dosemeci, C Samanic, J Lubin, CF Lynch, C Knott, J Barker, JA Hoppin, DP

Sandler, J Coble

, K Thomas , and A Blair. 2004. Pesticides and lung cancer risk in the

agricultural health study cohort. Am J Epidemiol, 160:876

- 85.

Alavanja, MC

, and MR Bonner

. 2012

. Occupational Pesticide Exposures and Cancer Risk: A

Review, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews,

Volume 15, Issue 4, 2012, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/225 71220

.

Alavanja, MC, MK Ross, and MR Bonner

. 2013. Increased cancer burden among pesticide

applicators and others due to pesticide exposure, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians,

January 15, 2013.

Alavanja MC, Samanic C, Dosemeci M, Lubin J, Tarone R, L ynch CF, Knott C, Thomas K,

Hoppin JA, Barker J, Coble J, Sandler DP, Blair A., Use of agricultural pesticides and

prostate cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study cohort, Am J Epidemiol. 2003 May

1;157(9):800

- 14.

American Association of Poison Contro l Centers, undated. NPDS Annual Report

Terminology, http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/NewsandEvents/NewsMediaResources/NPDSA

nnualReportTerminology.aspx

,

Andreot ti G, L Beane

- Freeman

, L Hou, J Coble, J Rusiecki

, JA Hoppin. 2009. Agricultural

pesticide use and pancreatic cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study cohort. Int J

Cancer 124:2495

– 2500.

Arcury TA, JG Grzywacz

, DB Barr

, J Tapia

, H Chen

, and SA Quandt

. 2007. Pesticide Urinary

Metabolite Levels of Children in Eastern North Carolina Farmworker Households.

Environ Health Perspect 115:1254

- 1260.

Arcury, T A

, JG Grzywacz, JW Talton, H Chen, QM Vallejos, L Galván , DB Barr

, and SA

Quandt. 2010

. Repeated pesticide exposure among North Carolina migrant and seasonal

farmworkers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 53: 802

– 813.

Arizona, Office of the Auditor General, 1990. Audit of the Arizona Department of Health

Services’ Activities Related to Agricultural Pesticides.

Azaroff LS, C Levenstein

, and DH Wegman

. 2002. Occupational injury and illness

surveillance: conceptual filters explain underreporting. Amer ican Journal of Public

Health

, 92: 1421

– 1429.

Baker, EL, JM Melius, and JD Millar . 20 09. Surveillance of Occupation Illness and Injury in

the United States: Current Perspectives and Future Directions, Jour nal of Public Health

Policy, Summer:9(2).224 Barnett PG, JE Midtling

, AR Velasco

, P Romero

, M O'Malley

, C Clements

, MW Tobin

, AO

Wollitzer

, and JC Barbaccia

. 1984. Educational intervention to prevent pesticide

induced illness of field workers, J FamPract. Jul;19(1):123

- 5.

Bassil KL, C Vakil

, M Sanborn

, DC Cole

, JS Kaur, and KJ Kerr

. 2007. Cancer health effects of

pesticides: systematic r eview. Can Fam Physician 53(10): 1704

- 11.

Beamer, P, R Canales, A Bradman, and J Leckie. 2009. "Farmworker Children's Residential

Non

- dietary Exposure Estimates from Micro

- level Activity Time Series." Environmental

International 35.8 (2009): 1202

- 209.

Be ane

- Freeman LE, MR Bonner

, A Blair

, JA Hoppin

, DP Sandler

, JH Lubin, et al

. 2005.

Cancer incidence among male pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study

cohort exposed to diazinon. Am J Epidemiol 162:1070

– 1079.

Bell EM, DP Sandler

, MC Alavanj a

. 2006. High pesticide exposure events among farmers and

spouses enrolled in the Agricultural Health Study. J Agric Saf Health

. May;12(2):101

- 16, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16724787

.

Blair, A., DP Sandler, R Tarone, J Lubin, K Thomas, JA Hoppin, and MC Alavanja. 2005.

Mortality among participants in the agricultural health study. Annals of epidemiology,

15(4), 279

- 285.

Blair, A

., and L Beane

- Freeman. 2009. Epidemiologic Studies of Cancer in Agricultural

Populations: Observations and Future Directions J Agromedicine . 2009; 14(2): 125

– 131.

Blomquist, GC, M Dickie, RM O’Conor . 2011. Willingness to pay for improving fatality risks

and asthma symptoms: Values for children and adults o f all ages, Resource and Energy

Economics, Volume 33, Issue 2, May 2011, Pages 410

- 425

BLS. 2010. Employer costs for employee compensation , Historical listing, Table 1.

Management, professional and related occupations. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.

D epartment of Labor. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ocwc/ect/ececqrtn.pdf

.

BLS. 2008. National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May

. Bureau o f Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of

Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/2007/may/oessrci.htm

BLS. 2007a. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation

- December 2007 . Bureau of Labor

Statistics, U.S. Department of

Labor. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03122008.pdf

BLS. 2007b. Employment Cost Index

- December 2007 . Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.

Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/eci_01312008.pdf

BLS. 2007c. National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May

. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of

Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/2007/may/oes_nat.htm

BLS. 2007d. Occupational Employment Statistics NAICS 999200

- State Government,

excluding schools and hospitals (OES Designa tion). Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.

Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999200.htm

.225 BLS. 2001. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation

- March 2001 . Bureau of Labor

Statistics, U.S. Department of

Labor. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_032001.pdf

Bouchard MF, DC Bellinger

, RO Wright

, and MG Weisskopf

. 2010. Attention

deficit/h yperactivity disorder and urinary metabolites of organophosphate pesticides.

Pediatrics . Jun;125(6):e1270

- 7. Epub 2010 May 17. PubMed PMID: 20478945.

Bouchard MF, Chevrier J, Harley KG, Kogut K, Vedar M, Calderon N, Trujillo C, Johnson C,

Bradman A, Barr D B, Eskenazi B., Prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and

IQ in 7

- year

- old children, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1189

- 95.

Bradman A, B Eskenazi

, DB Barr

, R Bravo

, R Castorina

, J Chevrier

, K Kogut

, ME Harnly, and

TE McKone

. 2005. Or ganophosphate urinary metabolite levels during pregnancy and

after delivery in women living in an agricultural community. Environ. Health Perspect

. 113 12 1802

- 1807.

Bradman, A, D Whitaker, L Quirós, R Castorina, B Claus Henn, M Nishioka, J Morgan, DB

Barr , M Harnly, JA Brisbin, LS Sheldon, TE Mckone, and B Eskenazi. 2009.

"Pesticides and Their Metabolites in the Homes and Urine of Farmworker Children

Living in the Salinas Valley, CA." Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental

Epidemiology 17.4 (2009) : 331

- 49.

Bradman A, D Whitaker

, L Quirós

, R Castorina

, BC Henn

, M Nishioka

, J Morgan

, DB Barr

, M

Harnly

, JA Brisbin

, LS Sheldon, and TE McKone

. 2007. Pesticides and their

metabolites in the homes and urine of farmworker children living in Salinas Valley. J.

Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiology 17 (4) 331

- 349,

Bradman, A, DB Barr, BG Clause Henn, T Drumheller, C Curry, and B Eskenazi. 2003.

Measurement of pestiicdes and other toxicants in amniotic fluid as a potential biomarker

of prenatal exposure: A valadation study. Environ. Health Perspect . 111,14 1779

- 1782

Bradman MA

, ME Harnly

, W Draper

, S Seidel

, S Teran

, and D Wakeham . 1997. “Pesticide

Exposures to Children from California's Central Valley: Results of a Pilot Study.” J Expo

Anal Environ Epidemiol 7, no. 2 (1997): 217

- 234.

Bronstein J, P Carvey

, H Chen

, D Cory

- Slechta

, D DiMonte

, J Du da

, P English

, S Goldman

, S

Grate

, J Hansen

, J Hoppin

, S Jewell

, F Kamel

, W Koroshetz

, JW Langston

, G

Logroscino, L Nelson

, B Ravina

, W Rocca

, GW Ross

, T Schettler

, M Schwarzschild

, B

Scott

, R Seegal

, A Singleton

, K Steenland

, CM Ta nner

, S Van Den Eeden

, M Weisskopf

. 2009. Meeting report: consensus statement

- Parkinson's disease and the environment:

collaborative on health and the environment and Parkinson's Action Net work (CHE

PAN) conference 26

– 28 June 2007. Environ. Health Perspect . 117, 117

– 121

Calabro, K, K Bright, and K Kouzekanani

. 2000

. Long

- term Effectiveness of Infection Control

Training among Fourth Year Medical Students. Medical Education Online . 5, no. 1

, (2000): 1

- 7.

Calvert GM, WA Alarcon, A Chelminski, MS Crowley, R Barrett, A Correa, S Higgins, H Leon,

J Correia, A Becker, R Allen, and E Evans. 2007. “Case Report: Three Farmworkers

Who Gave Birth to Infants with Birth Defects Closely Grouped in Time and Place

—226 Florida and North Carolina, 2004

– 2005.” Environ Health Perspect 115, no. 5 (2007):

787

- 791.

Calvert GM, LN Mehler

, R Rosales

, L Baum

, C Thomsen

, D Male

, O Shafey

, R Das

, M

Lackovic, and E Arvizu

. 2003 Acute pesticide

- related illnesses among wo rking youths,

1988

- 1999. Am J Public Health

, 93:605

- 610.

Calvert, G , J Karnik, L Mehler, J Beckman, B Morrissey, J Sievert, R Barrett, M Lackovic, L

Mabee, A Schwartz, Y Mitchell, and S Moraga

- McHaley

. 2008

. Acute pesticide

poisoning among agricultural w orkers in the United States, 1998

- 2005. American

Journal of Industrial Medicine , 51(12): 883

- 898.

Cameron, TA, JR DeShazo, and EH Johnon. 2009. Willingness to Pay for Health Risk

Reductions: Differences by Type of Illness , working paper, June

2009. http://pages.uoregon.edu/cameron/vita/Cameron_DeShazo_Johnson_0619091.pdf

.

CDC. 2011. Vital Signs

, Asthma in the US. Centers for Disease Control,

May. http://www.cdc.gov/VitalSigns/Asthma/index.html

CDC. 2012. United States Cancer Statistics , 2012. Centers for Disease Control.

At http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/toptencancers.aspx . Accessed September 20, 2012.

CDC. 2012. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Includes: Chronic Bronchitis

and Emphysema

. National Center for Health Statistics, FastStats. Centers for Disea se

Control. At http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/copd.htm . Accessed September 20, 2012.

CDC. 2012b. Vital Signs: Asthma Prevalence, Disease Characteristics, and Self

- Management

Education

– U nited Sta tes, 2001

- 2009, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

, 60(17);547

- 552. Centers for Disease Control, May 6.

At http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6017a4.htm?s_cid =mm6017a4_w

CDC. 2012c

. National Center for Health Statistics, FastStats, Asthma

. Centers for Disease

Control. A t http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/asthma.htm

Census Bureau. 2006. Statistics o f U.S. Businesses: 2006: NAICS 115112

- Soil Preparation,

Planting, and Cultivating, United States. U.S. Census Bureau,

at https://www.census.gov/epcd/susb/2006/us/US115112.HTM

.

Centers f or Disease Control, National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), United States

CFR. 2013. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 13: Business Credit and Assistance,

Subpart A

– Size Eligibility Provisions and Standards, Section 121.201, 2013,

at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi

- bin/text

idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=13:1.0.1.1.17&idno=13

.

Chafee

- Bahamon, C , DL Caplan, and FH Lovejoy

, Jr. 1983. "Pattern s in Hospitals' Use of a

Regional Poison Information Center." American Journal of Public Heath 73.4 (1983):

396

- 400.

Cherlor Manufacturing Company, Inc . 2008. Product and price list at http://www.cherlor.com

. Accessed May 8, 2008.227 Chiu BC, and A B lair

. 2009. Pesticides, chromosomal aberrations, and non

- Hodgkin's

lymphoma. JAgromedicine . 2009;14(2):250

- 5. Review. PubMed PMID: 19437285;

PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2790329

Christensen, CH, EA Platz, G Andreotti, A Blair, JA Hoppin, S Koutros, CF Lynch, DP Sandler,

and MC Alavanja. 2010. Coumaphos exposure and incident cancer among male

participants in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Environmetnal Health Perspectives

, 118(1):92

- 6.

Cooper, SR, SP Cooper, SS F elknor, VS Santana, FM Fischer, EM Shipp, and M S Vela Acosta

. 2005. Nontraditional Work Factors in Farmworker Adolescent Populations: Implications

for Health Research and Interventions, Public Health Rep . 120(6): 622

– 629 , Nov

– Dec.

Coronado GD, B Thompson

, L Strong

, WC Griffith

, and I Islas

. 2004. Agricultural task and

exposure to organophosphate pesticides among farmworkers. Environ Health Perspect

112:142

- 147.

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists

. 2011. Indicator 11: Acute Work

- Related

Pe sticide Poisonings Reported to Poison Control Center

. Available here, with more

recent data available in the

docket: http://www.cste.org/dnn/ProgramsandActivities/OccupationalHealth/Occupationa

lHealthIndicators/Indicator11/tabid/107/Default.aspx . Accessed May 16, 2011.

CPARD. 2007. Certification Plan and Reporting Database maintained by the National

Association o f State Departments of Agriculture and EPA at the Washington State

University website. http://cpard.wsu.edu/

.

Curl CL, RA Fenske

, JC Kissel

, JH Shirai

, TF Moate

, W Griffith

, et al

. 2002. Evaluation of

take

- home organophosphorus pesticide exposure among agricultural workers and their

children. Environ Health Perspect 110:A787

- 792.

Curwin BD, MJ Hein

, WT Sanderson

, MG Nishioka

, SJ Reynolds

, EM Ward

, and MC Alavanja.

2005. Pesticide contami nation inside farm and nonfarm homes, . J Occup Environ Hyg

. 2(7):357

- 67, July.

Curwin, B, W Sanderson

, S Reynolds, M Hein , and M Alavanja. 2002. Pesticide use and

practices in an Iowa farm family pesticide exposure study. J Agric Saf Health , 8:423

- 33.

Cu rwin, BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, C Striley, D Heederik, H Kromhout, SJ Reynolds

, and

MC Alavanja . 2007. Pesticide dose estimates for children of Iowa farmers and non

farmers, Environmental Research , Volume 105, Issue 3, November 2007, Pages 307

- 315

Das R

, A Steege

, S Baron

, J Beckman

, R Harrison

. 2001. Pesticide

- related illness among

migrant farm workers in the United States. Int J Occup Environ Health 7:303

- 312.

Davis, S, et. al

. 2006. Letter to Administrator Steve Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency.

Farmworker Justice. December 15.

Dayan J, A Bernard

, B Olliac

, AS Mailhes

, and S Kermarrec

. 2010. Adolescent brain

development, risk

- taking and vulnerability to addiction, Journal o f Physiology

- Paris

Volume 104, Issue 5, November 2010, Pages 279

- 286.228 Dick FD, G De Palma

, A Ahmadi

, NW Scott

, GJ Prescott

, J Bennett

, et al

. 2007.

Environmental risk factors for Parkinson’s disease and parkinsonism: the Geoparkinson

study. Occup Enviro n Med. 64(10):666

– 672.

DoL. 2005. National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2001

- 2002 A Demographic and

Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers Research Report No. 9 , Office of the

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of Programmatic Policy , U.S. Department of Labor,

March. Available here: http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/report9/naws_rpt9.pdf

Duffy, M. 2012. Estimated costs of crop production in Iowa . Iowa State University Extension

and Outreach publication FM

- 1712, revised

January. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/pdf/a1

- 20.pdf

.

D&B. 2010. Database of business info rmation maintained by Dun and Bradstreet,

Inc. http://www.dnb.com/us/

Engel SM, GS Berkowitz

, DB Barr

, SL Teitelbaum

, J Siskind

, SJ Meisel

, JG Wetmur

, and MS

Wolff

. 2007. Prenatal organophosphate metabolite and organ ochlorine levels and

performance on the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale in a multiethnic

pregnancy cohort. Am J Epidemiol . 165(12):1397

- 404. Epub 2007 Apr 3.

Engel SM, Wetmur J, Chen J, Zhu C, Barr DB, Canfield RL, Wolff MS., Prenatal exp osure to

organophosphates, paraoxonase 1, and cognitive development in childhood, Environ

Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1182

- 8.

EPA. 2012. Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table . Office

of Pesticide Programs, U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency,

March. www.epa.gov/opp00001/science/handler

- exposure

- table.pdf

.

EPA, 2011. Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis for Proposed Section 316( b)

Existing Facilities Rule. EPA 821

- R

- 11

- 002 March 28, 2011

. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/upload/environbenefits.pdf

EPA. 2010 a

. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses . U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. Available

here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/Guidelines.html/$file/Guidelines.pdf

EPA, 2010b. Economi c Analysis for the Proposed Revised Total Coliform Rule. Office of

Water (4607

- M) EPA 815

- R

- 10

- 001 June 2010.

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/Proposed%20RTCR%20EA.pdf

EPA. 2009. WPS Inspection and Enforcement Accomplishment Report 200 8. Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. 2008. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA Planned Revisions to Two Related

Rules: Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (RIN 2070

- AJ22 ); and

Certification of Pesticide Applicators (RIN 2070

- AJ20). Office of Pesticide Programs,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.

EPA. 2007. OPP Report on Incident Information: The Baseline . Office of Pesticide Programs,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available

here: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2007/oct2007/session10

- finalrpt.pdf

.229 EPA. 2006a. Economic Analysis of the Bulk Pesti cide Container Design and Residue Removal

Standards . Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Available at http://www.regulations.gov/

. Document ID: EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2005

- 0327

- 0024; Docket ID: EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2005

- 0327.

EPA. 2006b. How to Comply with the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides.

What Employers Need to Know . EPA/735

- B

- 06

- 002, Office of Prevention, Pesticides,

and T oxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Revised September 2005,

Reprinted June 2006.

EPA, 2006c. Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule. Office of Water (4606

- M)

EPA 815

- R

- 06

- 014 October 2006.

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disi nfection/gwr/pdfs/support_gwr_economicanalysis.pdf

EPA, 2005. Economic Analysis for the Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment

Rule. Office of Water (4606

- M) EPA 815

- R

- 06

- 001 December

2005, http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/lt2/upload/2006_03_17_disinfection

_lt2_anaylis_lt2_economic_main.pdf

EPA. 2002. Children Are at Greater Risks from Pesticide Exposur e , Office of Pesticide

Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 2002.

At http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/kidpesticide.htm

EPA. 1999. Radon in Drinking Water Heal th Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis . Office of

Groundwater and Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January

8. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen tDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2002

- 0046

- 0013

.

Eriksson M, L Hardell

, M Carlberg

, and M Akerman

. 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for

non

- Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroup analysis. Int J Cancer

. 123(7):1657

- 63 Oct 1

.

Eskenazi B, K H arley

, A Bradman

, E Weltzien

, NP Jewell

, DB Barr

, CE Furlong , and NT

Holland

. 2004. Association of in utero organophosphate pesticide exposure and fetal

growth and length of gestation in an agricultural population. Environ. Health Perspect

. 112:1116

– 1124

Eskenazi, B, AR Marks, A Bradman, K Harley, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Morga, and NP Jewell.

2007. Environmental organophosphate pesticide exposure and neurodevelopment in

young Mexican

- American children. Health Perspect . 115:792

– 798.

Furman, J. 2007. Choli nesterase Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in Agriculture: 2007 Final

Report

. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries: Division of Occupatio nal

Health and Safety. December

. At http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/Cholinesterase/files/DOSH_ChE_Report0

7_Final_010407.pdf

.

Gaylord Entertainment Co. 2007. Construction Management Division . Personal

communication.

Gempler’s. 2008. Product and price list at http://www.gemplers.com

. Accessed 2008.230 Goldman, L, B Eskenazi, A Bradman, and NP Jewell. 2004. “Risk Behaviors for Pesticide

Exposure among Pregnant Women Living in Farmworker Households i n Salinas,

California.” Am J Ind Med . 45, no. 6 (2004): 491

- 499.

Golub, MS . 2000. Adolescent Health and the Environment, Environmental Health Perspectives

, Vol. 108, No. 4 (Apr., 2000), pp. 355

- 362.

Gorell JM, CC Johnson

, BA Rybicki

, EL Peterson

, and RJ Richardson

. 1998. The risk of

Parkinson’s disease with exposure to pesticides, farming, well water, and rural living.

Neurology

. 50:1346

– 1350.

Grainger. 2013. Guardian Equipment Emergency

Shower. http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/GUARDIAN

- EQUIPMENT

- Emergency

Shower

- 4HRJ8?Pid=search . Accessed August, 2013.

Hammitt JK, and J

- T Liu . 2004. “Effects of Di sease Type and Latency on the Value of

Mortality Risk,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28(1): 73

- 95

.

Hancock DB, ER Martin

, GM Mayhew

, JM Stajich

, R Jewett

, MA Stacy

, et al

. 2008. Pesticide

exposure and risk of Parkinson’s disease: a family

- based case

- c ontrol study. BMC

Neurol

. 8:6.

Harchelroad F, RF Clark

, B Dean

, and EP Krenzelok

. 1990. Treated vs. reported toxic

exposures: discrepancies between a poison control center and a member hospital. Vet

Hum Toxicol. 32(2):156

- 9 , April

.

Hardell, L, and M Eri kkson. 2003. "Is the Decline of the Increasing Incidence of Non

- Hodgkin

Lymphoma in Sweden and Other Countries a Result of Cancer Preventive Measures?"

Environmental Health Perspectives 111.14 (2003): 1704

- 706.

Hoppin JA, DM Umbach

, SJ London

, PK Hennebe rge r

, GJ Kullman

, MC Alavanja

, and DP

Sandler

. 2008. Pesticides and atopic and nonatopic asthma among farm women in the

Agricultural Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med . 177(1):11

- 8 , Jan 1

. At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17932376

.

Hoppin JA, M Valcin, PK He nneberger

, GJ Kullman

, DM Umbach

, SJ London

, et al

. 2007

. Pesticide use and chronic bronchitis among farmers in the Agricultural Health Study. Am

J Ind Med 50:969

– 979.

Huse DM, K Schulman

, L Orsini

, J Castelli

- Haley

, S Kennedy

, and G Lenhart

. 2005. Burden of

illness in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders , 20(11):1449

- 54, Nov.

At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16007641

.

Institute for Highway Safety . 2008. Fatality Facts, 2008: Teenagers

. At http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_20 08/teenagers.html , accessed February,

24, 2011.

Itaoka K, AJ Krupnick, A Saito, and M Akai . 2007. Morbidity Valuation with a Cessation Lag:

Choice Experiments for Public

- and Private

- Goods Contexts in Japan , Resources for the

Future Discussion Paper, July 2007. http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF

- DP

- 07

- 07

- REV.pdf

.

Jones, A

, and L Smith. 2006. Letter to Kevin Keaney, Branch Chief, Certification & Worker

Protection Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comments regarding Issue231 Paper, "Making the Regulatory Requirements for Certified Crop Advisors, Crop Advisor

Employees & Aerial Apps. On behalf of National Alliance of Independent Crop

Consu ltants , Certified Crop Advisors.

Kamel, F, C Tanner, D Umbach, J Hoppin, M Alavanja, A Blair, K Comyns, S Goldman, M

Korell, J Langston, G Ross , and D Sandler. 2007. Pesticide exposure and self

- reported

Parkinson's disease in the agricultural health stud y. Am J Epidemiol , 165:364

- 74.

Kandel, W. 2008. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 2008 Update , Economic Research Report No.

60, Economic Research Service, U.S. Depa rtment of Agriculture, June

.

Koutros S, MC Alavanja, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, DF Lynch

, C Knott, A Blair, LE

Beane

- Freeman. 2010 a

. An update of cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study.

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 52(11):1098

- 105.

Koutros S, LE Beane

- Freeman, SI Berndt, G Andreotti, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, J A Hoppin, K

Yu, Q Li, LA Burdette, J Yuenger, M Yeager, and MC Alavanja. 2010 b . Pesticide use

modifies the association between genetic variants on chromosome 8q24 and prostate

cancer. Cancer Res , 70(22):9224

- 33.

Koutros, S, LE Beane

- Freeman, JH Lubin, SL Heltshe, G Andreotti, KH Barry, CT Dellavalle,

JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, CF Lynch, A Blair, and MC Alavanja. 2012. Risk of Total and

Aggressive Prostate Cancer and Pesticide Use in the Agricultural Health Study. American

Journal of Epidemiology , 177(1):59

- 74. Epub 2012 Nov

21, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23171882

.

Kristensen P, A Andersen

, LM Irgens

, P Laake

, and AS Bye. 1996. Incidence and risk factors

of cancer among men and women in Norwegian agriculture. Scand J Work Environ

Health

. 22(1):14

- 26 , Feb

.

Kutikova, L , L Bowman, S Chang, SR Long, M Arning , and W H. Crown . 2006. Medical costs

associated with non

- Hodgkin's lymphom a in the United States during the first two years

of treatment, Leukemia & Lymphoma 47:8, 1535

- 1544.

Lebailly, P, E Niez , I Baldi, JP Grillet, and C Agrican. 2006. Cohort Study "Agrican" on the

Causes of Death and Cancer Incidence Among French Farmers and Agricultural

Workers: Enrolment Step, Epidemiology : Volume 17

- Issue 6

- pp S311

- S312 , Nov

.

Lee WJ, A Blair

, JA Hoppin

, JH Lubin

, JA Rusiecki

, DP Sandler

, et al

. 2004. Cancer incidence

among pesticide applicators exposed to chlorpyrifos in the Agricu ltural Health Study. J

Natl Cancer Inst 96:1781

– 1791.

Lee WJ, DP Sandler

, A Blair

, C Samanic

, AJ Cross

, and MC Alavanja . 2007. Pesticide use and

colorectal cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study. Int J Cancer 121(2):339

- 46

, Jul

15.

Leon ME, LE Beane

- Freeman

, J Douwes

, JA Hoppin

, H Kromhout

, P Lebailly

, KC Nordby

, M

Schenker

, J Schüz

, SC Waring

, MC Alavanja

, I Annesi

- Maesano

, I Baldi

, MA Dalvie

, G

Ferro

, B Fervers

, H Langseth

, L London

, CF Lynch

, J McLaughlin

, JA Merchant

, P

Pahwa

, T Sigsgaard

, L Stayner

, C Wesseling

, KY Yoo

, SH Zahm

, K Straif

, and A Blair

. 2011

. Int AGRICOH: A Consortium of Agricultural Cohorts. J Environ Res Public

Health . 2011 May;8(5):1341

- 57. Epub 2011 Apr 29.232 Lovasi GS, Quinn JW, Rauh VA, Perera FP, Andrews HF, Garfinkel R, Hoepner L, Whyatt R,

Rundle A., Chlorpyrifos exposure and urban residential environment characteristics as

determinants of early childhood neurodevelopment, Am J Public Health. 2011

Jan;101(1):63

- 70.

Lu, C. RA Fenske, NJ Simcox, and D. Kalman. 2000. “Pesticide Exposure of Children in an

Agricultural Community: Evidence of Household Proximity to Farmland and Take Home

Exposure Pathways.” Environmental Research 84, no. 3 (2000):b290

- 302.

Machlin, SR, and K Carper. 2007

. Expenses for Office

- Based Physician Visits by Specialty,

2004

. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, Statistical Brief #166.

At http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st166/stat 166.pdf

. A ccessed April 29, 2008

.

Mahajan, R, A Blair, CF Lynch, P Schroeder, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler , and MC Alavanja. 2006.

Fonofos exposure and cancer incidence in the agricultural health study. Environ Health

Perspect , 114:1838

- 42

Mahajan R, Blair A, Coble J, Lynch CF, Hoppin JA, Sandler DP, Alavanja MC. Carbaryl

exposure and incident cancer in the Agricultural Health Study. Int J Cancer. 2007 Oct

15;121(8):1799

- 805.

Marks AR, K Harley

, A Bradman

, K Kogut

, DB Barr

, C Johnson

, N Calderon

, and B Eskenaz i

. 2010. Organophosphate pesticide exposure and attention in young Mexican

- American

children: the CHAMACOS study . Environ Health Perspect . 118(12):1768

- 74 , Dec

.

Mills PK, and R Yang

. 2003. Prostate cancer risk in California farm workers. J Occup Environ

Med . 45:249

- 258.

NAAA. 2008. Elementary Level Curriculum Guide

. National Agricultural Aviation

Association. At http://www.agaviation.org/sites/default/files/elem.pdf

.

NASS. 2013. Quick Stats, query on survey data for number of farms and

workers. http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ . Accessed July 2013.

NASS. 2010. Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey, 2007 Census of Agriculture, Tab le 22

. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture.

Updated February 2010. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/Irrigation_Survey/

.

NAS S. 2008a. Farm Labor , February 2008. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture. Available

here: http://usda.mannlib.corne ll.edu/usda/nass/FarmLabo//2000s/2008/FarmLabo

- 02

- 15

- 2008.pdf

.

NASS. 2008b. 2007 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United

States Department of Agriculture. Updated December

2008. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php

.

NASS. 2007. Farm Labor , November, 2007. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture. Available

here: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/FarmLabo//2000s/2007/FarmLabo

- 11

- 16

- 2007.pdf

.233 NASS. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United

States Department of Agriculture. Issued June

2004. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php

.

NASS. 1999. 1997 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United

States Department of Agr iculture. Issued March

1999

. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/index.php

.

National Cancer Institute

. 2012

. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results, National

Institute s of Health, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/ A ccessed September 20, 2012.

National Cancer Institute . 2011. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Statistics,

Fast Stats database, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/index.php Queried August 4, 2011.

National Cancer Institute . 2007. What you need to know about non

- Hodgkin lymphoma , NIH

publ ication 07

- 1567, September. At http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/non

hodgkin

- lymphoma.pdf

.

Nordby KC, A Andersen

, LM Irgens

, and P Kristensen

. 2005. Indicators of mancozeb exposure

in relation to thyr oid cancer and neural tube defects in farmers' families. Scand J Work

Environ Health . 31(2):89

- 96 , April

.

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011a) Apple Spray Program . Updated February

2011. http://www.nwwinc.com/_literature_49836/Apple_Spray_Program

.

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011b) Cherry Spray Program . Updated February

2011. http://www.nwwinc.com/_liter ature_49846/Cherry_Spray_Program

.

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. (2011c) Pear Spray Program . February

2011. http://www.nwwinc.com/_literature_52928/Pear_Spray_Program

.

Oborain. 2 013. Outdoor shower with drainage pan. http://www.oborain.com/ . Accessed

August, 2013.

O'Conor, RM , and GC Blomquist. 1997. "Measurement of consumer

- patient preferences using

a hybrid contingent valuation method," Journal of Health Economics , Elsevier, vol.

16(6), pages 667

- 683, December.

OMB. 2003. Circular A

- 4. Office of Management and Budget. September 17,

2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circ ulars_a004_a

- 4

.

OMB. (1996) Economic Analysis under Executive Order 12866. Office of Management and

Budget. January 11. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_riaguide

.

OSHA. 2004. Supporting Statement for the Information

- Collection Requirements of the

Respiratory Protection (29 CFR 1910.134) . OMB Control No. 1218

- 0099. Occupational

Health & Safety Administration, U.S. Department of

Labor. http://www.osha.gov/Reduction_Act/1218

- 0099.html#text9 . Accessed May 9,

2008).

Parkinson’s Disease Foundation . 2011. Symptoms website at http://www.pdf.org/en/symptoms

Accessed August 4, 2011.

Plog, BA

. 1996

. Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene . BA Plog, ed. National Safety Council,

United States, pp 29

- 30, Fourth Edition.234 Quandt, SA, TA Arcury, CK Austin, and RM Saavedra. 1998. Farmworker and farmer

perceptions of farmworker agricultural chemical exposure in North Carolina. Human

Organization , 57, 359

- 368.

Rao, P, SA Quandt, AM Doran, BM Snively

, and TA Arcury . 2007. Pesticides in the Homes of

Farmworkers : Latino Mothers' Perceptions of Risk to Their Children 's Health, Health

Educ Behav 2007 34: 335

Rauh, VA, R Garfinkel, FP Perera, HF Andrews, L Hoepner, DB Barr, R Whitehead, D Tang,

and RW Whyatt. 2006. Impact of Prenatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure on Neurodevelopment

in the First 3 Years of Life Among Inner

- City Children, Pediatrics 118: e1845

- e1859

Rauh, V., Arunajadai, S, Horton, M., Perera, F., Hoepner, L., Barr, D.,Whyatt, R., Seven

- Year

Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos, a Common

Agricultural Pesticide, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 August; 119(8): 1196

– 1201.

Reed, D B

, SR Browning, SC Westneat

, and PS Kidd. 2006

. Personal Protective Equipment Use

and Safety Behaviors Among Farm Adolescents: Gender Differences and Predictors of

Work Practices. The Journal of Rural Hea lth , 22: 314

– 320.

Reigart, JR

, and JR Roberts . 1999. Management of Pesticide Poisonings , Fifth Edition,

available here: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/healthcare

Rohlman, Diane S., W K ent Anger, and Pamela J Lein, Correlating Neurobehavioral

Performance with Biomarkers of Organophosphorous Pesticide Exposure,

Neurotoxicology. 2011 March; 32(2): 268

– 276.

Rosenbaum, S

, and P Shin . 2005. Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers: Health Insuranc e

Coverage and Access to Care , Kaiser Family Foundation. Available

here: http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/Migrant

- and

- Seasonal

- Farmworkers

- Health

Insurance

- Coverage

- and

- Access

- to

- Care

- Report.pdf

Rothlein, J, D Rohlman, M Lasarev, J Sanatana, and L McCauley. 2006

. Organophosphate

exposure and neurobehavioral performance among agricultural and non

- agricultural

Hispan ic workers. Environ. Health Persp . 114:691

- 696.

Rowntree DA, L Stallones, PL Sample, and K Sweitzer . 1998. Perceptions of Farm Hazards

and Personal Safety Behavior among Adolescent Farmworkers, Journal of Agricultural

Safety and Health

. Special Issue (1):159

- 169

.

Ruser, JW. 2008. "Examining Evidence on Whether BLS Undercounts Workplace Injuries and

Illnesses." Monthly Labor Review August (2008): 20

- 32.

Salam, Muhammad Towhid and Yu

- Fen Li, Bryan Langholz, Frank Davis Gilliland, and

Children's Health Study, Early

- life environmental risk factors for asthma: findings from

the Children's Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2004 May; 112(6): 760

– 765.

Salameh PR, I Baldi

, P Brochard

, C Raherison

, B Abi Saleh

, and R Salamon

. 2003. Respiratory

symptoms i n children and exposure to pesticides. Eur Respir J . 22(3):507

- 12, Sept.

At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14516143

.

Salazar MK, M Napolitano

, JA Scherer

, and LA McCauley

. 2004. Hispanic adol escent

farmworkers' perceptions associated with pesticide exposure. West J Nurs Res

. 26(2):146

– 166.235 Salvatore, AL, J Chevrier, A Bradman, J Camacho, J López, G Kavanagh

- Baird, M Minkler, and

B Eskenazi . 2009. A Community

- Based Participatory Worksite I ntervention to Reduce

Pesticide Exposures to Farmworkers and Their Families

. American Journal of Public

Health S578

- S581 , Vol 99, No. S3, Nov.

Sanborn

, M, KJ Kerr

, LH Sanin

, DC Cole

, KL Bassil

, and C Vakil

. 2007. Non

- cancer health

effects of pesticides: systematic review and implications for family doctors. Can Fam

Physician 53(10): 1712

- 20.

Schulze, LD, CL Ogg, and EF Vitzthum . 1997. Signs and Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning

, University of Nebraska Cooperati ve Extension EC97

- 2505

- A

.

Smith, R, K Klonsky, and R DeMoura. (2009) Sample costs to produce iceberg lettuce, Central

Coast Region . University of California Cooperative Extension publication LT

- CC

- 09

-

2. http://coststudie s.ucdavis.edu/files/lettuceicecc09.pdf

.

Snipes SA, B Thompson

, K O'Connor

, B Shell

- Duncan

, D King

, AP Herrera

, and B Navarro

. 2009. "Pesticides protect the fruit, but not the people": using community

- based

ethnography to understand farmworker pesticide

- e xposure risks. Am J Public Health

99Suppl 3:S616

- 21 , Nov

.

Spradley, P. 2007. Correspondence to Kathy Davis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on

Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement. American Association of Pesticid e

Safety Educators. June 7

.

S taples

. 2008. Product and price list at http://www.staples.com/

. Accessed April, 2008.

Steinberg, L. 2005. Cognitive and affective development in adolescence, Trends in Cognitive

Sciences Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 69

- 74, Feb.

Steinberg, L

, and E Cauffman . 2008. Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors

in adolescent decision making

. Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 20, Number 3, 249

-

272.

Strong LL, B Thompson

, TD Koepsell

, and H Meischke

. 2008. Factors associated with

pesticide safety practices in farmworkers. Am J Ind Med . 51(1):69

- 81 , Jan

.

Tanner CM, Kamel F, Ross GW, Hoppin JA, Goldman SM, Korell M, Marras C, Bhudhikanok

GS, Kasten M, Chade AR, Comyns K, Richards MB, Meng C, Priestley B, Ferna ndez

HH, Cambi F, Umbach DM, Blair A, Sandler DP, Langston JW., Rotenone, paraquat, and

Parkinson's disease, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jun;119(6):866

- 72.

Thun, MJ, LM Hannan, LL Adams

- Campbell, P Boffetta, JE Buring, D Feskanich, WD Flanders

et al

. 20 08. "Lung cancer occurrence in never

- smokers: an analysis of 13 cohorts and 22

cancer registry studies." PLoS medicine 5, no. 9 (2008).

Turner, MC, DT Wigle, and D Krewski. 2009. Residential pesticides and childhood leukemia: a

systematic review and met a

- analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (1):33

- 41.

Tuthill. 2008. Product and price lists, Tuthill Corporation at http://tuthill.com

. Accessed May

8, 2008.236 U.S. House of Representatives. 2008. Hidden Traged y: Underreporting of Workplace Injuries

and Illnesses

. Committee on Education and Labor. Washington : Government Printing

Office

.

U.S. National Library of Medicine . 2011. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease . PubMed

Health, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001153/

. Accessed September

20, 2011.

University of Florida (2008

- 09) Interactive Budgets, Vegetables. University of

Florida. http://www.fred.ifas.ufl.edu/iatpc/ibudgets09.php

.

Valcin, M, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, M C Alavanja, D P Sandler,

and J A Hoppin. 2007. "Chronic bronchitis among non

- smoking farm women in the

agricultural health study." Journal of occupational and environmental medicine/American

College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 49, no. 5 (2007): 574.

van der Mark, M, M Brouwer, H Kromhout, P Nijssen, A Huss, and R Vermeulen. 2012. Is

pesticide use relate d to Parkinson disease? Some clues to heterogeneity in study results.

Environmental health perspectives, 120(3), 340.

Van Maele

- Fabry

, G, AC Lantin

, P Hoet

, and D Lison

. 2011. Residential exposure to pesticides

and childhood leukaemia: a systematic revie w and meta

- analysis. Environment

International . 37(1):280

- 91 , Jan

.

Veltri, JC, NE McElwee, and M C Schumacher. 1987. "Interpretation and Uses of Data

Collection in Poison Control Centers in the United States." Medical Toxicology : 389

- 97.

Vida, P, and A Mo retto. 2007. "Pesticide Exposure Pathways among Children of Agricultural

Workers." Journal of Public Health 15.4 (2007): 289

- 99.

Washington State Division of Environmental Health, Office of Environmental Health

Assessments. 2003. Summary Results of Y akima Farmworker Focus Groups about

Pesticides and Health Care . Available

here: http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/publications_pdf/focus_group_summary_030922

f inal.pdf

Wigle, DT, MC Turner, and D Krewski. 2009. A systematic review and meta

- analysis of

childhood leukemia and parental occupational pesticide exposure. Environmental Health

Perspectives 117:1505

- 1513.

Wigle DT, MC Turner

, J Gomes

, and ME Parent

. 2008. Role of hormonal and other factors in

human prostate cancer. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev . 11(3

- 4):242

- 59 , Mar

. Review. PubMed PMID: 18368555

Wilson, LS, R Tesoro, EP Elkin, N Sadetsky, JM Broering, DM Latini, J DuChane, RR Mody,

and PR Carroll . 2006. Cumulative Cost Pattern Comparison of Prostate Cancer

Treatments, CANCER ; Publ ished Online: December 21

.

World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO IARC), IARC

Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic R isks to Humans

, Volume 53.

Occupational Exposures in Insecticide Application, and Some Pesticides: Summary of

Data Reported and Evaluation (1991). Available here:

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol53/volume53.pdf237 Wyatt, T. 2008. Screening Le vel Analysis of the Small Business Impacts of Revoking

Carbofuran Tolerances . Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs, U.S. EPA.

Yang

, RC, and PK Mills. 2009. Proportionate cancer incidence in the Laotian population of

California, 1988

- 2006. Cancer Causes Control . 20(6):1011

- 6 , Aug.

Yoo, K, H Shin, S Chang, K Lee, S Park, D Kang, and D Lee. 2002. "Korean Multi

- center

Cancer Cohort Study including a Biological Materials Bank." Asian Pacific Journal of

Cancer Prevention 3.1 (2002): 85

- 92.

Young

, JG, B Eskenazi

, EA Gladstone

, A Bradman

, L Pedersen

, C Johnson

, DB Barr

, CE

Furlong , and NT Holland

. 2005. Association between in utero organophosphate

pesticide expos ure and abnormal reflexes in neonates. NeuroToxicology 26 199

– 209

Young, M

, and DG Rischeitelli. 2006. “Occupational Risks and Risk Perception among

Hispanic Adolescents.” McGill J Med 9, no. 1 (2006): 49

- 53.

Zahm, SH, and A Blair. 1997. Cancer Feasibi lity Studies Among Migrant Farmworkers,

American Journal of Industrial Medicine , 32:301

– 302 (1997).

Zahm

, SH, and A Blair

. 1993. Cancer among migrant and seasonal farmworkers: an

epidemiologic review and research agenda. Am J Ind Med . 24(6):753

- 66 , Dec

.

Zahm

, SH, JS Colt

, LS Engel

, MC Keifer

, AJ Alvarado

, K Burau

, P Butterfield

, S Caldera

, SP

Cooper

, D Garcia

, C Hanis

, E Hendrikson

, N Heyer

, LM Hunt

, M Krauska

, N

MacNaughton

, CJ McDonnell

, PK Mills

, LD Mull

, DL Nordstrom

, B Outterson

, DP

Slesinger

, MA Sm ith

, L Stallones

, C Stephens

, A Sweeney

, K Sweitzer

, SW Vernon

, and

A Blair

. 2001. Development of a life events/icon calendar questionnaire to ascertain

occupational histories and other characteristics of migrant farmworkers. Am J Ind Med

. 40(5):490

- 501 , Nov

.

Zahm, S H , J Dich, A Hanberg, and H Adami. 1997. "Pesticides and Cancer." Cancer Causes

and Control 8.3 (1997): 420

- 33.

Zahm, SH, MH Ward. 1998. Pesticides and childhood cancer. Environ Health Perspect 106

Suppl 3:893

- 908, June.