# OREGON OSHA

PESTICIDE EMPHASIS PROGRAM

ANNUAL REPORT

Federal Fiscal Year 2010

Garnet R Cooke, Pesticide Coordinator Stanton E Thomas, Health Enforcement Manager Chris Ottoson, CIH, Health Field Operations Manager Trena VanDeHey, Health Enforcement Analyst2 

### Oregon OSHA Pesticide Emphasis Program FFY 2010 Annual Report

Introduction

Oregon OSHA (OR-OSHA) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10 Pesticides and Toxics Unit, have worked together on pesticide safety issues s ince 1993. OR-OSHA enforces the Worker Protection Standard, which is supplemented with a pesticide emphasis pro gram. The Pesticide Emphasis Program has been in effect since 2000. This report is the annual review of t he pesticide emphasis program for federal fiscal year 2010 (FFY 2010). The data elements and analysis are presented, along with recommendations for program improvements for the coming year.

Data Elements The data elements examined in this report are based on OR-OSHA’s Program Dir ective A-235, entitled “Local Emphasis Program for Pesticides.” Inspections were completed from a progr ammed list selected from the following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAI CS) codes they will be referred to as “selected NAICSs” for the purposes of this report.

NAICS 111998 General farming, field Crops, except Cash Grains, Not Elsewhere Cl assified

NAICS 111339 Deciduous Tree Fruits NAICS 111421 Nursery & Tree Production

NAICS 111422 Floriculture Production NAICS 115112 Crop preparation including pesticide spraying

Other NAICSs inspected as a result of complaints, referrals or program med Agricultural Health inspections are included in this report if the inspection addressed pesticide-related issues.

Data Summary Pesticide exposures occur throughout the handling process, from purchase to disposal. The go al of the Pesticide Emphasis Program is to reduce occupational exposures to pesticides in agricult ure through enforcing the pesticide- related standards such as the Worker Protection Standard, Hazard Communi cation, Respiratory Protection, Pesticide Storage, Fumigation and supervision. Implementation of these requirements can reduce the likelihood of exposures resulting in acute or chronic effects. The Pesticide Em phasis Program continues be an effective tool for disseminating information, education, and compliance assist ance and enforcement activities to reduce occupational exposures to pesticides in the agriculture industry.

The following is a brief summary of the findings resulting from the evaluati on of FFY 2010 activity.3 Inspection Activity In FFY 2010, 86 inspections were completed which identified 385 pesticide-related violat ions. Shown in the table below are the inspections attempted, whether they were Complaint, Referr al or Program Planned inspections. A Program Planned inspection means it was a scheduled Pesticide Empha sis inspection from the emphasis list.

Summary tables show previous inspection data for 2002 thru 2009 and are included as a referen ce.



## Attempted and Completed inspections by inspection t ype

Source: Information Management Division, Oregon Dep artment of Consumer and Business Services, January 2011

The table below denotes whether the completed inspections were Tier 1* or Tier 2 ** inspections, with further discussion on the following page.



## Completed inspections by WPS/emphasis type

*Tier 1 Inspections: Pesticides used within the preceding 30 days plus the restric ted entry interval **Tier 2 Inspections: Pesticides NOT used within the preceding 30 days plus the rest ricted entry interval.4 Violation characteristics Of the 385 pesticide-related violations in FFY 2010, 19% (72/385) were cited as serious. Wit hin the Selected NAICS, 84% (61/72) violations were classified as serious. These included violat ions of the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) and other occupationally-related standards pertaining to pesticide s. Pesticide-related violations include the Oregon OSHA standards addressing hazard communication, respirator y protection, emergency eyewash, supervision, pesticide storage and fumigation. From the previous tables, WPS Tier 1 inspections accounted for 81% (70/86) of the pesticide emphasis inspections, and 19% (16/86) were Tier 2. Sixty-three of the 86 inspections were programmed planned. In FFY 2010, there were 3 repeat violations . A violation is termed a repeat when a specific standard is violated, is corrected, and occurs a gain within a three-year period. To encourage employers to maintain diligence in preventing the reoccurrenc e of previously cited violations, repeat violations carry higher penalties. These data support the continued focus of our ins pection resources within the Selected NAICS as an effective means to address worker protection a nd pesticide safety.



## Pesticide violations and penalties in FFY 2010

Source: Information Management Division, Oregon Dep artment of Consumer and Business Services, January 2011. If a WPS violation is grouped with another violatio n, the WPS and non-WPS violations are counted separ ately, but the penalty amount for the whole group is retained with the WPS violation.5 Summary of previous years: The tables below summarize inspections, violations and penalties for federal fi scal years 2002 through 2010.



## Stats for completed inspections by federal fiscal y ear

Pesticide violations and penalties, FFY totals

Source: Information Management Division, Oregon Dep artment of Consumer and Business Services, January 2011 If a WPS violation is grouped with another violatio n, the WPS and non-WPS violations are counted separ ately, but the penalty amount for the whole group is retained with the WPS violation.6 The violations below are divided up into either handler or worker related, showing the cat egories of issues for each group. 

## Pesticide violations cited in FFY 2010

While the violations for many of the above topics have remained relatively stable, one area has seen a significant decrease. The requirement for a 15-minute emergency eyewa sh became effective in fall of 2006 (FFY 2007 Pesticide Emphasis Report) and was cited 23 times that year, and the follow ing year it was cited 25 times. In FFY 2010, the lack of a 15-minute emergency eyewash was only cite d 5 times.7 Inspection History for WPS Inspections:

Source: Information Management Division, Oregon Dep artment of Consumer and Business Services, January 2011 If an employer was inspected more than once in FFY 2010 they were categorized only once based on inspe ction type in the following order of precedence: WPS tier 1; WPS tier 2; non-WPS. If an employer was inspected more than once in FFY 2010 their current inspection results were categori zed based on the following order of precedence: WPS violations; other pesticide violations; non-pesticide violation s; Ag Exempt; in compliance. If an employer had more than one inspection prior t o FFY 2010 they were categorized based on the follo wing order of precedence: health inspection; other than health in spection; no previous inspections.8 Pesticide Analytical Response Center (PARC) Cases

In FFY 2010, there were two occupationally-related pesticide exposure cases re ferred to Oregon OSHA from PARC which represented six symptomatic individuals.

The first case involved 5 workers, employees of a seed company, pulling ‘off t ypes’ of grass in a 5-acre grass seed field. The workers were at the south end of the field when a commercial appli cator showed up and began spraying the same field. The workers ran to the next field, with the applicator s praying 20 feet from them. Four of the 5 workers experienced symptoms ranging from nose and throat irritation, to naus ea, and intense headaches which lasted the rest of the day. The active ingredient of the pestici de involved was 2, 4-D amine. The workers’ employer failed to make contact with the grower of the fields the workers enter to identify if any pesticide applications had taken place, or were scheduled to take place. The commercia l applicator failed to notify the employer of the workers in the field when he would be making an application. T he applicator stated if there were irrigation pipes in the field he would contact the grower; however, he di d not follow this same protocol if people were present.

The second case involved a Christmas tree grower who, together with his son, mixed Wa rhawk (Chlorpyrifos) without wearing any personal protective equipment, and had two teenage (16 and 17 year s old) boys spray the pesticide on the Christmas trees using a backpack power mister. The boys would ta ke turns donning the power mister and would walk down a row of Christmas trees, spraying on either side while walking through the mist, returning by walking and spraying down another row. They continued applying in this ma nner for three hours. The teens were not provided with any personal protective equipment as required by the pe sticide label. The label required: long sleeve shirt, long pants, chemical resistant gloves, cove ralls, chemical resistant footwear, chemical resistant headgear and a dust/mist respirator. Upon completion the tee nagers were instructed to go home and shower. There were no decontamination supplies at the application/mix sit e. Each drove home in their personal vehicle. The 17 year old took three showers before his skin stopped burning and flushed hi s eyes with contact solution before his eyes stopped burning. He indicated he had slight difficult y breathing in addition to the burning skin and eyes. He threw away his contaminated clothing. The 16 year old took a quick shower and changed clothes, but wore the same boots and went to work baling straw for another employ er. At 7 p.m. his breathing was short, his chest felt tight and had stomach cramps. Twenty minutes l ater the 16 year old was feeling dizzy and his employer took him to the emergency room. The 17 year old was noti fied to report to the emergency room as well. In the emergency room the symptoms the 16 year old expe rienced progressed to include numbness in hands and face, burning eyes, and significant difficulty breathing

.9 External Training External training consists of two parts, workshops put on by the OR-OSHA Public Educa tion Section, and speaking requests performed in conjunction with Oregon Department of Agricultur e events. External speaking requests were conducted mostly in conjunction with day long multi-program agendas put on by grower groups, the Oregon Department of Agriculture, or the Oregon State University Extens ion Service for the purpose of maintaining credits for pesticide licenses. These multi-program event s carried the greatest attendance numbers.



## Oregon OSHA speaking requests in FFY 2010

Pesticide Related Interventions – External Training , FFY 2010

Pesticide Inspectors Forum—Multi-Agency Annual Meeting The joint Oregon-OSHA – ODA Pesticide Inspectors Forum garnered continuing edu cation units for attendees in a multi-agency gathering featuring NIOSH Personal Protective Equipm ent Testing Laboratory, EPA Region 10 and EPA Headquarters, the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) , CROET/OHSU, Oregon State University and the Salem-Keizer School District. Topics included an overview of NIOSH’s Personal Protective Equipment Testing Laboratory and their new agriculture initiatives; EPA’s container containment regulations; Integrated Pest Management Programs in schools; NPIC initiatives and reso urces; the new soil fumigation requirements; and what Oregon OSHA staff look for during pesticide emphasis inspections for the benefit of other agencies present to aid their understanding of Oregon OSHA requirements, a nd to assist them in their

outreach efforts.10 The work of Oregon OSHA’s Pesticide Emphasis Program was highlighted in two post er presentations at the joint Agricultural Safety and Health Council of America/NIOSH Conferenc e in Dallas, Texas. Garnet Cooke, Pesticide Coordinator presented: “Preventing Pesticide Exposure: The Oregon OS HA Experience.” The second: “Non-Compliance with Personal Protective Equipment Regulations in Agriculture are Common” was presented by Kim Faulkner, PhD., of the NIOSH National Personal Protective Technology La boratory, et al. The latter used Oregon OSHA data from the Pesticide Emphasis Program inspections. Both abs tracts were published in the conference proceedings in the summer 2010 issue of the Journal of Agromedicine.

Conclusions OR-OSHA enforcement and voluntary compliance activities continue to provide effe ctive means for addressing worker protection and pesticide safety in various ways. The annual meeting among multiple agencies affords opportunities for developing strategies that enhance and improve worker protection. This collaboration and

coordination makes for more effective use of limited resources towards enhanc ing pesticide safety.

Accomplishments

♦ A brochure was developed by Oregon OSHA on selection, care and use of personal protective equipment related to pesticides. It is available on-line at http://www.orosha.org/pdf/pubs/1018.pdf

. ♦ The OR-OSHA poster, “Protect Yourself From Pesticides,” targeting pes ticide safety in forest activities, has been used by the Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health (PNASH ) Center, which is affiliated with the University of Washington, in their own outreach activities.

♦ External trainings exceeded last year, even though there were signifi cant reductions within the public

education section.

♦ Developed an effective multiagency format for the Pesticide Inspecto r’s forum, which was extremely well received by attendees.

Goals for the coming year

♦ Conduct referral inspections where pesticide applications are documented during OR-OSHA silviculture inspections.

♦ Provide continued assistance to the NIOSH NPPTL program in addressing barrier s to the use of personal protective equipment used by pesticide applicators.11



## Oregon OSHA publications in FFY 2010

Pesticide Related Interventions – Consultative Serv ices – Booth shows, FFY 201012



## Oregon OSHA consultations by NAICS in FFY 2010

*Does not include pesticides, but identifies outre ach potential



## Oregon OSHA resource center pesticide related video s, FFY 2010