June 13, 2007

TO: Kathy Davis, Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement, EPA FROM: Carol Ramsay, Amy Brown, and Kerry Richards, AAPSE members of the PPDC Workgroup on proposed changes to C&T and WPS

RE: Input from AAPSE members

Following a Board of Directors meeting specially convened on June 4, 2007 to address proposed changes to C&T and WPS, the American Associa tion of Pesticide Safety Educators (AAPSE) is developing its official stance. The Board was ab le to the reach consensus on several, but by no means all, of the proposed changes. The AAP SE governing body intends to submit its official comment by the requested June 15 deadline.

At this time we, the AAPSE members on the PPDC Workgroup for this issue, are submitting

additional comments we have received from individual AAPSE members. The comments below have not been reviewed by the AAPSE Board and have neither been endorsed nor refuted by the

AAPSE Board of Directors.

C&T 1 – Expand the Scope

 One AAPSE member noted that creating a “s ensitive site” category implies that all pesticide applications made to these areas are extremely dangerous to the public. Also there could be significant difficu lty in defining such sites so that regulatory action can be

taken.

 One member felt that that a for-hire technici an has no tactical advantage (business wise or competency level) over a for-hire creden tialed (unsupervised) applicator. Both require training, but the technician needs to be supe rvised to apply a less risky pesticide. The matrix clearly shows that it would be most prudent to eliminate the for-hire technician altogether.

 One member also felt that we would be remiss in our duties not to include private applicators applying non-RUPs in our discussions to “enhance” C&T.

 Another member specifically noted that there was no proposed change to the definition of private applicators to include the use of “any pesticide” requiri ng credentialing which they felt was important.

C&T 2

 One member noted that any training program for technician credentialing should have prior SLA review and approval.C&T 3

 One member contributed the following comment if the expanded scope does not include

a technician/handler tier: the certified applicator must be within visual and voice contact at all times or require the RUP be on ly applied by a certified applicator.

C&T 6 – Standard Exams

 Several members commented they agree exam s should be proctored and identification made. Applicators should not be allowed to bring reference mate rial into the test session

or to take exams home.

 One member noted for EPA must recognize that states need to utilize the examination to assess competency of state issues.

 One member noted that requiring closed books for category-specific exams would make it necessary to simplify the exams and felt that “approved materials” should be allowed to be used when taking a category exam.

C&T 7 – Recertification

⁪ One member expressed skepticism of a required continuing education component as proposed under option #1. With declining f unds, fewer states will have the necessary

staff and resources to conduct annual conti nuing education sessions. Therefore, the member supports giving states the option to ad minister a recertifica tion exam in lieu of retraining in any category.

WPS 3 – Enhance Safety Training

 Several members commented they support a minor enhancement of the pesticide safety training with the following items for consideratio n: take home pesticides issues to protect families, keep children out of treated areas, proper handling/washing of contaminated clothing, heat stress, and how to initiate a complaint.

 Several members did not support the WPS as a mechanism to protect farmworker children through field entry prohibitions based on age or re-entry inte rvals since there is no enforcement mechanism that could prevail. How does an employer verify age, let

alone SLAs enforce on it? One member e xpressed concern that it would lead to discriminatory hiring practices, and an employe r having to verify ages in a community of people who are largely illegal alie ns is another impossible chore.

 One member addressed Option 3, saying that it is even more unworkable. When you put additional requirements on the label it now pl aces the burden on the applicator. How in all practicality is an applicat or going to be in compliance w ith this, especially a customapplicator? This sounds very nice if the appli cator is the same one who owns the land and hires the workers, but it would be a nightma re for a custom applicator. Overnight you could destroy an industry with this provision or it simply would be ignored on a large scale and further erode the authority of the label.

 The option to establish a separate mandato ry training module focused on family and children was seen as having so littlie meat that one cannot tell what this would entail.

One commenter said that if one has to train ch ildren as well as adults, then this would really re-orient training philosophy and seve rely restrict who actually could do the training.

 Several members did not support that only EPA-approved materials can be used in training. Concern was expressed that EPA does not have the sta ff available to tackle such a big job, and would not be likely to be able to turn out or commission, or approve of training materials for WPS in a timely fashion.

WPS 4 - Miscellaneous options

 170.1 – One member noted landscape and main tenance workers would be brought in if the scope is expanded to include Pest Control For Hire App licators and their supervised employees. AAPSE does not support this as part of WPS but as part of 40CFR171.

Another member stated that EPA should not expand the scope of WPS to additional areas because EPA is proposing to require occupational applicators to be credentialed in some manner, and that these applicators would meet the current criteria under WPS for being

trained.

 170.103 – One member supports non-agricultural or so-called “techni cian” community.

Another member commented that EPA needs to be aware of the types of employees likely to be included in such an expansion of WPS. This member thought that “wide area management programs” should not include such situations as mosquito or grasshopper management programs. This could include county commissioners, mayors, street department employees, cowhands, etc., as th ey receive compensation from the agency authorizing the application. That memb er did agree, however, that boll weevil eradication and gypsy moth spray programs to forest areas should be covered under WPS, and pointed out that they are covered under the current WPS.

 170.104 – One member supports. Another memb er questioned how EP A will clarify the definition of owner or immediate family. W ithout a definition, appropriate input cannot be provided.

 170.110 –Two members commented that they were unable to comment meaningfully

without better definitions and clarification. For instance, what is meant by a greenhouse: only the bay where the application is being made , or the entire struct ure? Another needed definition pertains to “spraying.” Many greenhouses inject pesticid es through irrigation systems; would this be considered sprayi ng and require the entire greenhouse to bevacated? EPA did not describe how the ventila tion criteria would be changed; therefore,

members cannot comment.

 170.112 –

• Two members expressed concern about c onfusion with a new skull and cross bones sign because of similarity on pesticide labe ls and the possible dual interpretations. These members also disagreed with the pr oposal to require signs every 100 feet, labeling it impractical. Cons ider that a 40 acre field (which is small in some commodities) requires 53 signs at $25 per sign, thus $1,325. How does the grower ensure an attached paper re mains attached? Another me mber pointed out that the requirement to have a sign posted every 100’ feet would mean 106 signs on a 160 acre field measuring 2,640 ft x 2,640 ft. One issue would be the cost of the signs; another would be the necessity of posting on the “back side” of fields where there are no workers or other people. There are sections (640 acres) in some locations of the US that have the same crop (corn and soybeans) with virtually no hand labor present, but they do have workers on the farm. Th e proposal would require posting around the entire field for crops that are ve ry likely not to be entered.

• Additionally, a member stated that includi ng all pesticides applie d in the last 30 days to a posted field is the same as the inform ation required at the central location. If workers will not read the information there, why should they read the information at the field? Does EPA realize how many pest icides can be applied to some greenhouse or nursery crops in 30 days?

• Other questions raised included whether the Agency is proposing that three languages be on the posted sign – English, Spanish, and another language spoken by a majority of the workers employed by that employer. Do es EPA mean all workers, or only field workers? Does EPA intend the signs to have more than English and Spanish is there are workers that speak other languages? Most farmers do have common entry points for fields. If EPA wants specific areas poste d, the member suggests that the first entry point for each day a work crew enters a fi eld be posted, and th at the sign should be moved from point to point as the work crew moves through the field.

⁪ 170.122 – One member questioned why the applic ation time is needed unless this is an enforcement issue for SLAs to determine if the REI and posting occurred within the required time period. If this is the issue, tim e of application (start and ending) would be very important for SLA inspectors to be ab le to access. The member supports requiring

the end time of the REI. If an area is posted, everyone should know to stay out and the question is when one can enter, so require the time posted that re-entry can be done. Once the posted sign is up no one should be ente ring the area. Thus, there is not a need for requiring the start time of the REI because the start time is when the poster goes up.

 170.135 – One member strongly supported using th e decontamination site as the “central location”. Many growers find it practical. Anot her member said for large growers thiswill be impractical and overre action. EPA should consider a llowing two or more central locations for large operations. The problem then becomes what is large? The states with migrant workers may be able to determine a distance for the multiple central posting

locations. The same information should be posted at each location to avoid any worker not being informed of a pesticide application.

 170.150 (Decontamination) –

• One member questioned how EPA inte nds to define farm? Many farms have separated land units that are many, many mile s from the home farm; this could require mobile changing areas.

• Another member said that although this is a good idea, EPA is requiring establishments that have workers to provide facilities that come under OSHA or other federal regulatory agency(s). This will not be well received and may actually negate any compliance towards WPS by establishm ents avoiding coming under WPS. The member opposes EPA including bystander in this regulation. This could include anyone within an unspecified area of a trea ted field/forest. If EPA expands WPS to

maintenance workers this could include en tire office building employees or everyone within a school or university. The member suggests pesticide use information only be provided to professional hea lth care providers in a medi cal emergency, and supports the two business working days for providing such information. Providing such information to “his/her representative” c ould result in employers having to provide information to “representatives” who are just seeking pesticide use information and not related to a “suspect ed” medical situation.

 170.240 – One member said that although this has good intentions, ju st placing on a label or establishing a regulation doe s not result in compliance. EPA should realize that in many areas of the nation there are not medical facilities or industria l hygienists available for fit testing applicators. There will be added costs for applicators to drive many miles (50+ miles one way) to reach such faciliti es. EPA should have baseline data on EPA’s alleged non-compliance to compare with the compliance that will occur with the new regulation.

 170.3

• One member supports.

• Another member noted that the problem is not with EPA’s definition of closed cabs,

but with their availabi lity. EPA should not require the use of equipment that is not readily available to th e applicator community.

 170.7• One member supports, as long as the view of retaliation lines up with that of OSHA and the states that have their own regulations.

• Another member questioned the supporti ng documentation of problems with this section: “A problem is more than just a few incidents.”

 One member questioned how many states laws do not already have a required respirator program in place for agricultural pesticid e handlers? If many, consider requiring a respirator program as part of WPS, if and only if the employee is required to wear a respirator. Most pesticides do not require their use.

 Cholinesterase monitoring –

• One member noted Washington data on c holinesterase testing indicates that CHE depressions are fairly crop sp ecific. It would be better for EPA to assess the exposure risks on a crop use basis and mitigate expos ures by cropping systems with high human

exposures.

• Another member said EPA needs to real ize that in many parts of the United States

medical facilities are few and far between. Who is to determine when a worker has 30 or more hours in a 30 day period? Is this the SLA or the employer? If the employer, what type of records are to be kept so the SLA can monitor the records and compliance? EPA needs to work with their partners to ensure that enforcement can be done in a clearly definable procedure. EPA needs to clarify “...and periodic plasma

and red blood cell cholinestera se tests.” time line. “Perio dic” is not very precise. The medical facility/doctors must report to th e workers in a language the workers can clearly understand.

WPS 5 – Crop Advisor Issues

 One member supported. Another member sa id that crop advisors need the same protection as field workers, and Option 2 is the better option. On e major reason is how will pesticides affect crop advisors differently from field workers? They both would enter a treated field pr ior to the REI, so why should the crop advisor not wear PPE but the

field worker must? How are SLAs to determin e when a crop advisor entered and exited a

field? This would create a situation where SLAs could not enforce the regulation. Indirectly, the crop advisor is an employee of the farmer/manager of the field. The person/company was hired to inspect the cr op. Thus, they should be considered like other employees in regards to pesticide safe ty. Crop advisors should be handlers under WPS. Crop advisors should have PPE a nd decontamination facilities available.

WPS 6 – Clarify REI Exceptions One member supports especially due to the irrigation water scheduling. When water is

available it must be used. Another member commented that it may be best to retain existing vague wording rather than go thr ough another ten years of new vague wording. If EPA expands WPS to dairy, livestock, landscap e, and maintenance, there will be more exceptions needed, which will likely create more unclear wording.