Via Overnight Alail 

Lisa P. Jackson 

Administrator 

U .S . I;nviroiullental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Washington, D .C. 20004 

October 13, 2009 

Re : Pesticides in the Air - Kids at Risk: Petition to EPA to Protect Children From 

Pesticide Drift 

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

Enclosed is a Petition to EPA to Protect Children From Pesticide Drift. Eartlijustice and 

Farmworker Justice submit this Petition on behalf of United Farmworkers, Pesticide Action 

Network of North America, Physicians for Social Responsibility, MomsRising, Pineros y 

Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, Sea Mar Community Health Center, California Rural Legal 

Assistance Foundation, and Farm Labor Organizing Committee. Because the attachments to the 

Petition are numerous and lengthy, also enclosed is a CD containing the 73 attachments 

referenced in the Petition . 

Please do not hesitate to contact me should _you have any questions . We appreciate your 

prompt attention to the matters raised in the Petition and we look forward to working with EPA 

on this very important issue . 

Enclosure 

cc: Steve A. Owens 

Assistant Administrator 

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 

U .S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W . 

Washington, D.C . 20004 

r 

r- ` 

-, 

~-r-, 

0 h 

d) 

- 

c ..) 

705 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 203 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1711 

T : 206 .343 .7340 F : 206 .343 .1526 E : eajLswaWearthjustice .org W : www .earthjustice .org 
PESTICIDES IN THE AIR - KIDS AT RISK: 

Petition to EPA to Protect Children From Pesticide Drift 

Submitted on behal f of 

United Farmworkers, Pesticide Action Network of North America, 

Physicians for Social Responsibility, MomsRising, 

Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, 

Sea Mar Community lIealth Center, 

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, 

and Farm Labor Organizing Committee 

Patti Goldman 

Janette K. Brimmer 

Earthjustice 

705 Second Avenue, 

Seattle, WA 98104 

Suite ?03 

Virginia Ruiz 

Farmworker Justice 

1126 - 16`h Street, N. V`' . 

Suite 270 

'Washington, D.C . 20036 

Coi.rrrsel_for Petitioners 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

THE U .S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HAS FAILED TO 

PROTECT CHILDREN FROM PESTICIDE DRIFT AND MUST TAKE IMMEDIATE 

STEPS TO CORRECT THESE VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL PESTICIDE LAWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 

ENF.CLITIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 

1 . CHILDREN ARE PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE TO PESTICIDES . . . . . . . . . . . . I 

lI . CONGRESS DIRECTED EPA TO ENSURE THA1' CHILDREN ARE 

PROTECTED FROM PESTICIDES FROM ALL SOURCES BY THE 

END OF 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 

111 . EPA IGNORED CHILDREN WHO ARE POISONED BY SPRAY 

DRIFT AND VOLATILIZATION DRIFT WHERE THEY LIVE, GO TO 

SCHOOL, AND PLAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 

IV . EPA MUST TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO COMPLY WITH ITS 

LEGAL DUTY TO PROTECT ALL CHILDREN FROM PESTICIDE 

DRIFT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 

BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 

I . PESTICIDE DRIFT POSES SIGN IFICAN"1' RISKS TO CHILDREN'S 

HEAL"1'H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 

A. Children Are More Susceptible to Harlll From Pesticides Than Adults. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 

B. EPA Has Long Reco&qlized That Drift Exposures Can Be Harmful to 

Children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 

C. Documented Evidence Confirms That Pesticide Drift Harms Children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 

Il . EPA IS VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW BY FAILING TO PROTECT 

CHILDREN FROM PESTICIDE DRIFT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 

A. Federal Law Requires EPA to Protect Children From Pesticide Drift. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

1 . Federal Law Governing Pesticides and Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 

2. Federal Law Governing Pesticide Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

3 . Executive Orders on Environmental Justice and Child Health . . . . . . . . . .14 

B. EPA Has Violated Its Legal Duties by Ignoring Children's Exposures to 

Harmful Pesticides Through Drift. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

ACTIONS NEEDED TO CORRECT EPA' S LEGAL VIOLATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 
1 . EPA MUST CONDUCT PESTICIDE-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS OF THE RISKS TO CHILDREN FROM PESTICIDE DRIFT AND MODIFY PESTICIDE REGISTRATIONS TO ELIMINATE 

EXCESSIVE RISKS TO CHILDREN . . . ., .  /'~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 V 

Il . EPA SHOULD IMMEDIATELY ADOPT INTERIM NO-SPRAY BUFFERS AROUND HOMES, SCHOOLS, DAYCARE CENTERS, AND PARKS TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM DRIFT. . . . . . . . . ., . ., ., .  , ., . 23 

A. EPA Should Take Inullediate Action to Ensure that Children Are Protected From Pesticide Drift . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

B. EPA Should Impose Interim No-Application Buffer Zones to Protect 

Children From Exposure to Dangerous Drift-Prone Pesticides. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LS 

CONCLUSION . . . . . .  . , ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 

ATTACHMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enclosed CD 
THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HAS FAILED TO PROTECT 

CHILDREN FROM PESTICIDE DRIFT 

AND MUST TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO CORRECT THESE 

VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL PESTICIDE LAWS 

This petition asks the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to remedy ongoing 

violations of its legal obligations to protect children from unsafe aggregate exposures to 

pesticides . Specifically, EPA has failed to protect children from exposure to toxic pesticides that 

drift from agricultural fields and contaminate areas where children congregate, such as homes, 

park, schools, and daycare centers, 1'o ensure that children are protected from toxic pesticides as 

required by the law, this petition asks EPA to: 

(1) expeditiously evaluate the exposure of children to pesticide drift and impose 

safeguards to ensure that children are protected from aggregate pesticide 

exposures, including pesticide drift ;1 and 

(2) immediately adopt interim prohibitions on the use of toxic drift-prone pesticides 

such as organophosphates and n-methyl carbamates near homes, schools, parks, 

and daycare centers or wherever children congregate. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

I, Cl-I11 .nREN ARE PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE TO PESTICIDES. 

In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences ("NAS") released a pivotal study on the 

heightened vulnerabilities of children to pesticides . The study criticized EPA for treating 

children like "little adults" and for failing to address their unique susceptibility to pesticides and 

their exposures based on the foods they eat and their play and exploration activities. Children 

i The term "drift" as used in this petition includes any airborne movement of pesticides away 

from a target site during and,'or after application . including airborne movement of pesticide 

droplets, pesticide powders, volatilized vapor-phase pesticides, and pesticide contaminated soil 

particles . 
are especially vulnerable to harm from pesticides because they are growing and developing, eat 

and drink more per body weight than adults, consume large amounts of certain foods, and engage 

in activities that increase their exposure such as frequently putting hands or objects into their 

mouths. NAS recommended that EPA revise its pesticide regulations to account for children's 

vulnerabilities, consumption patterns, and "exposures from all sources - not just ingestion . . . ."Z 

I1 . CONGRESS DIRECTED EPA TO ENSURE THAT CHILDREN ARE PROTECTED 

FROM PESTICIDES FROM ALL SOURCES BY THE END OF 2006. 

Congress heeded the hAS recommendations and unanimously passed the Food Quality 

Protection Act in 1996 . That law requires EPA to "ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that 

no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure" to pesticides.' "Aggregate 

exposure" includes "all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is 

reliable information," including pesticide drift exposures. 

4 Congress gave EPA an August 2006 

deadline to bring all pesticides used on foods into compliance with these protective mandates. 

Ill . EPA IGNORED CHILDREN WHO ARE POISONED BY SPRAY DRIFT AND 

VOLATILIZATION DRIFT WHERE THEY LIVE, GO TO SCHOOL, AND PLAY. 

To comply with the new FQPA requirements, EPA developed methods to estimate child 

and infant pesticide exposures from a variety of sources, including crawling and playing on 

treated lawns and carpets, putting their hands into their mouths, and playing with pets treated 

with flea shampoos. These assessments led EPA to cancel numerous home uses of pesticides 

because of excessive risks to children. 

Pesticide drift is another significant route of exposure for children, particularly those who 

'` NAS, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, at 307 (1993), Attachment 1 (hereinafter 

"NAS Report"). This and all attachments are located on the enclosed CD . 

21 U .S .C . §y 346a(b)(2)(C)(ii)(1), (1I) . 

4 21 U .S .C . § 346a(b)(2)(A)(ii) (emphasis added); see also 21 U.S.C. § 346a(b)(2)(C)(vi) . 
live in agricultural areas . The 1993 NAS study on children's risks from pesticides found that 

agricultural pesticide drift can contribute to kids' overall pesticide exposure and that airborne 

pesticide residues are generally higher in areas close to agricultural lands .s The California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation has also documented harmful exposures to the public Iiiom 

pesticide drift. And the Washington State Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking Review 

Panel has found that "[e]xposure to pesticide drift is an important cause of documented pesticiderelated illness in Washington."6 

Inexplicably, EPA has failed to assess children's exposures to pesticides that drift from 

agricultural sites to homes, schools, daycares, parks, and other places where children may be 

exposed. EPA's failure comes despite its acknowledgment of its obligation to protect children 

from drift, which can cause acute poisonings as well as cancer, long-term reproductive and 

developmental disorders, and other chronic adverse effects . By failing to assess the risk to 

children who are exposed to agricultural pesticide drift, EPA maintains a double-standard that 

often provides some protections for kids from pesticides used in urban and residential settings, 

but leaves kids who live near agricultural sites unprotected and vulnerable to pesticide drift. 

In failing to protect these forgotten children, EPA has violated the Food Quality 

Protection Act. The agency's failure also violates executive orders directing EPA to ensure that 

its programs do not have disproportionate adverse health impacts on children, minority, and lowincome populations . 

IV. EPA MUST TAKE IMMEDIATE IJ STEPS TO COMPLY Vv'1'1'H 11'S LEGAL DUTY TO 

PROTECT ALL CHILDREN FRON1 PESTICIDE DRIFT. 

This petition asks EPA to take two immediate steps to comply with its legal duty to 

NAS Report at 308-09, Attachment 1 . 

b Washington State Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking Review Panel, Annual Report: 

2005, at 81 (May 2007), Attachment 2 . 
protect all children from all pesticide exposures: 

First, EPA must fully evaluate drift risks for all pesticides that have the potential to move 

from agricultural sites to areas where children congregate, such as homes, parks, schools, and 

daycare centers . Based on these assessments, EPA must limit or prohibit pesticide uses that 

result in children being exposed to unsafe levels of pesticide particles or vapors. In order to 

adequately protect children, EPA must correct its violations of the FQPA and executive orders 

more quickly than the current set of pesticide registration reviews, which are not scheduled to be 

completed until 2022 . 

Second, to protect children while it conducts the necessary drill exposure assessments 

and develops pesticide-specific protective measures . EPA should impose no-spray buffer zones 

for dangerous drift-prone pesticides around homes, schools, parks, daycare centers, and other 

places where children congregate. EPA has recognized that such buffer zones are an effective 

method in reducing risks associated with pesticide drill. These buffers should be required for all 

pesticides that have the potential to drift, including the two classes of widely used nerve toxins 

(organophosphales and n-methyl carbactnates) that cause acute poisonings, EPA has found that 

young children are already exposed to these two classes of' pesticides at or possibly in excess of' 

maximum safe levels, without having considered the additional exposures from drift. EPA must 

take inunediate steps to prevent the additional undssessed drift exposures from harming children 

while EPA completes the drift risk evaluations . 

BACKGROUND 

1 . PESTICIDE DRIFT POSES SIGNIFICANT RISKS TO CHILDREN'S HEALTH. 

A. Children Are More Susceptible to Harm From Pesticides Than Adults 

In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences ("NAS") published a pivotal study 

documenting the many ways pesticides pose especially severe risks to infants and children. In 
particular, NAS found that pesticides pose heightened risks to children because "[i]nfants and 

children are growing and developing," "[t]hcir metabolic rates are more rapid than adults," and 

"[t]here are differences in their ability to activate, detoxify, and excrete xenobiotic compounds ."7 

Children are also at heightened vulnerability because they "eat and drink more than adults" in 

relation to their body weight, they consume large quantities of certain fruits and vegetables, and 

engage in risky behaviors "such as playing on floors or lawns or putting objects in their 

inouths."g The NAS Report lound that EPA had failed to assess children's unique exposures to 

pesticides and their special susceptibilities to the adverse health effects of such exposures at 

various stages of development." Recent EPA-funded research confirms that children can be 

much more vulnerable to pesticide exposure than adults."' 

B . EPA Has Long Recognized That Drift Exposures Can Be Harmful to Children . 

One of the many routes by which children are exposed to pesticides is through pesticide 

drift. In its 1993 Report on children and pesticides, NAS observed that "[e]xposure to pesticide 

residues from ambient air sources is generally higher in areas close to agricultural lands and in 

communities surrounding pesticide manufacturing factories" and also "movement of the more 

volatile chemicals present potentially significant human exposure ."" To guard against harms 

7 NAS Report at 3, Attachment 1 . 

8 CPA, Pesticides and Food: Why Children May be Especially Sensitive to Pesticides (Mar. 

2008), Attachment 3 . 

9 NAS Report .,IL 3-7 (1993), Attachment 1 . 

1° F, ., Centers for Children's Environmental Health & Disease Prevention Research, Exposures 

& Health of Farm Worker Children in California, Attachment 4; see also EPA, Children's 

Exposure to Pesticides and Related Health Outcomes, Attachment S (cataloguing studies 

indicating that children are less able to protect themselves from organophosphate poisoning 

because they have yet to fully develop the "PON 1 enzyme," which is necessary to detoxify these 

chemicals .) . 

11 NAS Report at 309, Attaclunent 1 . 
associated with pesticide exposures, NAS recommended that "exposure from all sources-not 

just ingestion-must be considered when estimating total [pesticide] exposure and risk to 

children." 12 

For decades, EPA has required pesticide labels to include general admonitions to avoid 

spray drift, but has recognized that this generalized label direction is inadequate to protect 

innocent bystanders such as children from pesticide drift. For example, the Worker Protection 

Standard ("WPS") regulations contain a provision generally requiring pesticide users to "assure 

that no pesticide is applied so as to contact, either directly or through drift, any worker or other 

person . . . . . . 1 3 Ho%vever, even with such general label directions, EPA found that numerous 

poisoning incidents were occurring each year and the current drift labeling was "inconsistent or 

inadequate and for many products unclear to applicators and others ." 14 

In order to provide better protections from. drift, EPA took two actions. First, it 

established a "Spray Drift Task Force" ("SDTr") charged with helping to develop "a generic 

spray drift database which is expected to be capable of satisfying spray drift data requirements 

for virtually all pesticide product registrations in the United States and Canada."" The SDTF 

ultimately developed an evaluation tool-called "AgDRIFT"-that can help estimate exposure 

from spray drift for individual pesticides. 

16 Second, EPA published a notice proposing 

"improved and more consistent product label statements for controlling pesticide drift in order to 

1'` NAS Report at 307, 308-09, Attachment 1 . 

13 40 C.1~' .R. § 170.210(a) . 

III EPA, Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2001-X Draft : Spray and Dust Drift Label Statements 

for Pesticide Products, Attachment 6 (hereinafter "Draft Spray Drift PR Notice"). 

" EPA, Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 90-3 : Announcing the Formation of an Industry-Wide 

Spray Drift Task Force (Apr. 6, 1990), Attachment 7 . 

" SDTI~, AbDRIFT Frequency Asked Questions (July 31, 2003), Attachment 8 . 
be protective of human health and the environment ."~' EPA explained why it believed new 

spray drift label language was necessary: 

EPA's position on pesticide drift is that applicators must not allow pesticide spray 

or dust to drift from the application site and contact people, animals, and certain 

sensitive sites, including structures people occupy . . . , parks and recreation areas, 

nontarget crops, aquatic and wetland areas, woodlands, pastures, or rangelands . 

The Agency believes Ns is prudent public policy. It sets high but appropriate 

standards for applicators to protect people and the environment. . . . EPA believes 

the suggested labeling in this Notice will reduce risks associated with pesticide 

drift without a significant reduction in product efficacy. Accordingly, EPA 

believes that these label statements will help ensure that the requirements of 

FIFRA are met and, specifically, that pesticides are used in a manner that does not 

result in "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment." 18 

EPA's proposal would have placed limits on application equipment, methods, and conditions, 

such as wind speeds to reduce drift exposures . 

19 

Despite recognizing that current pesticide labels were "inadequate" to prevent harmful 

drift, EPA never finalized the proposal to impose greater safeguards to prevent spray drift . Nor 

has EPA implemented the drill mitigation outlined in the proposal when it registered or 

reregistered pesticide uses . 

C . Documented Evidence Confirms That Pesticide Drift Harms Children. 

In 2001, EPA expressed concern about the number of poisoning incident reports and 

concluded that existing pesticide restrictions are insufficient to prevent harmful spray drift.'`° 

Poisoning incident reports continue to show that pesticide drift poses significant risks to people . 

For example, in 2006, the Washington State Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking Review 

Panel found that "[e]xposure to pesticide drift is an important cause of documented pesticide17 Draft Spray Drift PR Notice , Attachment 6. 

'' Id. 

19 Id. 

~u Id. 
related illness in Washington ."`1 The California Department of Pesticide Regulation ("CDPR") 

documented 3,997 reported pesticide drift incidents in California between 1992 and 2007.`'` 

These reports are admittedly only the tip of the iceberg due to the well-documented disincentives 

and obstacles to such reporting . 

23 In addition, a growing number of epidemiological studies link 

pesticide drift to specific adverse health effects in humans, including autism spectrum 

disorders .24 Parkinson's disease,2s and childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.26 

Pesticide monitoring and modeling studies further confirm that pesticide drift may pose 

significant health risks to children who live near fields . 

27 For example : 

`1 Washington State Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking Revie~~~ Panel, Annual Report : 

2005, at 81 (May 2007). Attachment 2 ; see also Barbara Morrissey, Washington State 

Department of I lealth, Spray Drift and I Iuman Health Incidents , Attachment 9. 

`2 Cal . Dep't of Pesticide Regulation, California Pesticide Illness Query, Attachment 10 . 

`3 Pesticide incidents are notoriously underreported. See General Accounting Office, Pesticides : 

Improvements Needed to Ensure the Safety of Farmworkers and Their Children (Mar. 2000), 

Attachment 11 . EPA has recognized that pesticide incident reporting is of limited usefulness and 

questionable reliability due to the lack of any consistent national system for collecting such 

reports, the failure of health professionals and exposed persons to associate symptoms with 

pesticide exposure, lack of health insurance or financial resources to seek medical attention, and 

failure to record pesticide poisoning incidents in the various incident databases. EPA, Regulatory 

Impact Analysis of Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides, at V-11 to V-20 (Aug. 

1992), Attachment 12 . 

`4 Eg., Roberts, E ., et al. , Maternal Residence Near Agricultural Pesticide Applications and 

Autism Spectrum Disorders Among Children in the California Central Valley, Envtl. Health 

Perspectives, Vol. 115, No. 10, at 1482 (Oct . 2007), Attachment 13 . 

`' E:g_, Costello, S ., et al. , Parkinson's Disease and Residential Exposure to Maneb and Paraquat 

From Agricultural Applications in the Central Valley of California, Am. Journal of 

Epidemiology, Vol . 169, No . 8, at 919 (Jan. 2009), Attachment 14. 

`6 ~, Rull, R ., et al. , Residential Proximity to Agricultural Pesticide Applications and 

Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, Envtl. Research, Vol. 109, at 891 (July 2009), 

Attachment 15 . 

27 See generally Tupper, K ., Written Testimony of Karl Tupper, Staff Scientist, Pesticide Action 

Network North America for the Illinois Senate Agriculture and Conservation Committee, at 1-6 

(Sept . 2009), Attachment 16 . 
r 

1 

1 

1 

r 

1 

1 

1 

1 

" In 2007. an air monitoring study conducted near the Southwoods Elementary School in Hastings, Florida, detected four pesticides-endosulfan, diazinon, trifluralin, and 

Hastings, 

chlorothalonil . At least one pesticide was found in each of the 39 samples, with three or flour of the pesticides detected in 74% of samples, sometimes at levels exceeding levels of concern based on end points selected by the EPA as appropriate for assessing inhalation risk .28 Exposure to these lour chemicals is associated with a wide range of adverse health effects-endosulfan interferes with hormones and was linked to autism in an epidemiological study, diazinon is neurotoxic, and trifluralin and chlorothalonil are rated by the EPA as "possible" and "probable" carcinogens, respectively. 

" In 2006 and 2007, air monitoring at homes and an elementary school in rural Minnesota also detected chlorothalonil-a fungicide EPA has classified as a "probable" carcinogen-in 123 ofthe 186 samples analyzed.`9 

" In Spring 2006, air monitoring in the Yakima Valley of Washington State, an area known for apple and grape production, detected chlorpyrifos-an acutely toxic organophosphate insecticide associated with developmental harm to children-in communities in amounts exceeding levels of concern derived from EPA selected endpoints and including EPA's FQPA safety lactor.3° 

" Air monitoring in Lindsay, California, found chlorpyrifos in the air at levels exceeding the level of concern for children by up to 7.9 times in 2004, and up to 6.6 times in 2005.'1 

" In 2004, a study by scientists from the University of Washington and Washington State University on the organophosphate methamidophos determined that pesticide 

volatilization drift "could be a potentially high percentage of inhalation exposure" that "has implications in agricultural communities, where children are allowed to play outside immediately after spraying . . . "3` 

28 Pesticide Action Network North America, Air Monitoring in Hastings, Florida: October I -

December 6, 2007 (Sept. 2008), Attachment 17. 

29 Pesticide Action Network North America, Pesticides and Air Pollution in Minnesota: The Frequency of Detection of Chlorothalonil a Fungicide Used on Potatoes, at 1 l Sites in 2006-07, Attachment 18. 

30 Farm Worker Pesticide Project & Pesticide Action Network North America, Poisons on the Wind

A 

: Communitv Air Monitoring for Chlorpvrifos in the Yakima Valley (Dec . 2006), i ~ ,* 1, *,., . .. ~ I n 

31 Pesticide Action Network North America, Air Monitoring for Chlorpyrifos in Lindsay, California (July 2006), Attachment 20 . 

3'` Ramaprasad, J ., et al. , The Washington Aerial Snray Drift Study : Assessment of Off -Target Organ onhosphorus Insecticide Atmospheric Movement by Plant Surface Volatilization, Atmospheric Environment 38 at 5703-13 (2004), Attachment 21 . 

9 
" In 2000, ehlorpyrifos was detected in one-third of all ambient air samples collected in 

California's San Joaquin Valley at levels that sometimes exceeded the level of concern 

for young children.'3 

" In 1996, the California Air Resources Board ('`CARB") found chlorpyrifos in 74 percent 

of air samples taken at elementary schools and other sites near orange fields in Tulare 

County, California.34 CARB has also detected potentially unsafe levels of other 

pesticides, including methidathion and molinate, in studies conducted between 1986 and 

2000." 

These data indicate that pesticide drift is a potentially significant route of exposure for 

children who live or go to school near agricultural fields . In light of the vulnerabilities of 

children to pesticides, EPA cannot ensure that children will be protected from harm unless it 

accounts fully for such exposures. 

11 . EPA IS VIOLATING FFnERAL LAW BY FAILING TO PROTECT CHILDREN 

FROM PFSTICIDE DRIFT. 

A. Federal Law Requires EPA to Protect Children From Pesticide Drift . 

l . Federal Lati~ Governing Peslicicles and Food 

The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ("FFDCA") regulates food safety and requires 

EPA to set "tolerances" (i.e., maximum allowable levels) for pesticide residues in food. 

36 A 

pesticide may not be used on a particular food unless EPA has established a tolerance or 

exemption for that food. 

17 If a food contains pesticide residues that exceed the levels permitted 

'3 Environmental Working Group, Every Breath You Take : Airborne Pesticides in the San 

Joaquin Valley (Jan . 2001), Attachment 22 . 

'4 CARB, Final Report for the 1996 ChlorRvrilos Monitoring in 1'ulare County (Apr. 13, 1998), 

Attachment 23 . 

'' Lee. S ., et al , Community Exposures to Airborne Agricultural Pesticides in California: 

Ranking of Inhalation Risks, Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 110, no. 12, at 1175 (Dec. 

2002), Attachment 24 . 

36 21 U.S .C. §§ 346a(b), (c) . 

37 21 U .S.C. § 346a(a)(1). 

10 
under a tolerance, the food is characterized as "adulterated" and is unlawful under the FrDCA.38 

1n 1996, Congress unanimously adopted the FQPA, which amended the FFDCA to 

incorporate NAS's 1993 recommendations for EPA to ensure that children are protected from 

pesticide exposures.39 Under the FQPA, before EPA can allow a pesticide residue on a food, the 

agency must "ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and 

children from aggregate exposure" to the pesticide .40 The FQPA defines "aggregate exposure" 

to include "all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable 

information . 

"41 The FQPA gave EPA 10 years to bring all uses of pesticides on food into 

compliance with the new standards . 

To implement these statutory mandates, EPA has developed a "risk cup" approach that 

first quantifies the exposure level for a pesticide that would exceed the safety standard for 

specific population groups, including fetuses, infants, and children in dilferent age ranges . EPA 

then adds up exposures from various sources, such as consumption of each food on which the 

pesticide is used, residues in drinking water, and exposure to the pesticide through residential 

uses . If aggregate exposures to the pesticide from non-occupational sources "overflow" the risk 

cup for a particular subpopulation, the pesticide does not meet the FQPA safety standard . EPA 

will then look for ways to reduce exposure by, for example, eliminating some uses to reduce total 

exposure to levels that meet the safety standard . 

Not surprisingly, given the FQPA's mandate to protect children, exposures to infants and 

38 21 U.S .C. § 342 . 

39 H.k. Rep. No . 104-669, Pt. 2, at 43 . 

ao 21 U.S.C. §§ 346a(b)(2)(C)(ii)(1), (11) . 

41 21 U.S .C . § 346a(b)(2)(A)(ii) (emphasis added); see also 21 U.S .C. § 346a(b)(2)(C)(vi) (In setting tolerances, EPA "shall consider . . . available information concerning the aggregate 

exposure levels of consumers . . to the pesticide chemical and to other related substances, including dietary exposure . . . and exposure from other non-occupational sources . . .

. "). 

I1 
children have often been the driving force behind pesticide cancellations and use limitations 

under the FQPA. For example, in 1997, EPA began a phase-out of almost all food uses of 

vinclozolin after finding that the pesticide posed unacceptable risks of sexual deformities in male 

fetuses .42 In 2000 and 2001, EPA began a phase-out of almost all home and garden uses of the 

organophosphates clilorpyrilos and diazinon after determining that residential uses of these 

pesticides cause the child risk cup for each of these pesticides to overflow.43 Most recently, in 

May 2009, EPA revoked all tolerances for carbofuran after determining that "estimated 

exposures significantly exceeded EPA's level of concern for children."44 However, EPA has left 

children who are exposed to many of these same chemicals that drift from agricultural sites 

unprotected . 

2. Federal Law Governing Pesticide Usage 

Congress enacted the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA") in 

1947 to protect farmers from adulterated and ineflective pesticides. FIFRA had no health or 

enviroivnental standards until 1972, when Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring and the 

controversy over DDT prompted Congress to amend FIFRA to incorporate health and 

environmental standards .~'; 

Under FIFRA, EPA must register a pesticide before it can be sold or used in the United 

States.46 To register or reregister a pesticide use, EPA must ensure that the chemical will 

4' EPA, R .F.D. Facts: Vinclozolin (Oct. 2000), Attachment 25 . 

43 EPA, Occupational/Residential Ilandler and Postapplication Residential Risk Assessment for 

Chloi-p yrifos, at 6 (Oct. 1999) : Attachment 26; EPA, Diazinon Revised Risk Assessment and 

Agreement with Re istrants, at 2-3 (Jan . 2001), Attachment ~ 7. 

44 74 Fed. Reg . 23,046, 23,052 (May 15, 2009). 45 See Pub. L. No. 92-516, 86 Stat . 996 (1972) ; H.R. Rep. No. 511, 92d Cong., lst Sess. (1971) . 

46 7 U.S .C. § 136a . 

12 
perform its intended function without causing any "unreasonable adverse etlects on the 

cnvironment."4' FIFRf1 defines this standard as "any unreasonable risk to man or the 

environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of 

the use of any pesticide . . . ."4g In applying this standard, EPA must undertake a comprehensive 

assessment of all risks from a pesticide encompassing "every relevant factor that the 

Administrator can conceive into account," 49 including pesticide drift. 

The FQPA amended FIFRA's "unreasonable adverse effects" definition to include "a 

human dietary risk from residues that result from. a use of a pesticide in or on any food 

inconsistent with the [l~'QPA] standard . 

,50 Accordingly, EPA can register a pesticide only if 

there is reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure to the pesticide under the 

FQPA standard.s1 EPA can impose use restrictions as necessary to meet this standard, which are 

included on the legally enforceable pesticide label . The August 2006 deadline for bringing fooduse pesticides into compliance with the FQPA extends to both tolerances under the FFDCA and 

registrations under FIFRA.'2 

" 7 U .S .C . § 136a(c)(5)(C) . 

" 7 U.S.C . § 136(bb)(1) . 

49 See S. Rep. No. 838, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., reprinted in 1972 U.S .C .C.A .N . 3993, 4032-33 ; _see 

also EPA, General Principles for Performing Aggregate Exposure and Risk Assessments , at 9 

(Nov. 28, 2001), Attachment 28 ("The FQPA-amended FIFRA also speaks to the requirement 

that [EPA] evaluate risks on an aggregate basis.") . 

s° 7 U .S.C. § 136(bb)(2). 

`1 1~, EPA, General Principles for Performing Aggregate Exposure mid Risk Assessments, at 9 

(Nov . 28, 2001), Attachment 28 ("[T]he [FIFRA] standard for making decisions whether to 

register or continue registration of a pesticide for food-use must satisfy the standards in the 

FFDCA .") . 

52 Use restrictions are set out on the EPA-approved label affixed to the product . A pesticide may 

not be used in a manner inconsistent with the label . I1~ EPA determines that a pesticide 

registration does not comply with FIFRA, it may commence administrative proceedings to 

13 
3. Executive Orders on Environmental Justice and Child Health 

Two executive orders issued during the 1990s also require EPA to protect children from 

pesticide drift. First, the 1994 Environmental Justice Executive Order requires EPA to ensure 

that its actions do not have disproportionate impacts on low-income and/or minority 

populations .53 Specifically, EPA and other executive agencies must, to the maximum extent 

practicable, "identify[] and address[] . . . disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations ." 54 In furtherance of this mandate, EPA is required to "collect, maintain, and 

analyze information assessing and comparing environmental and human health risks borne by 

populations identified by race, national origin, or income" and ``use this information to determine 

whether their programs, policies, and activities have disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations . , , .»ss 

Second, the 1997 Executive Order on Children's Health56 requires EPA to protect 

children from environmental health and safety risks . Specifically, EPA is required to "ensure 

that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children that 

result from environmental health or safety risks . . . that are attributable to products or substances 

that the child is likely to come in contact with or ingest (such as the air we breath [sic], the food 

we eat, the water we drink or use for recreation, the soil we live on, and the products we use or 

cancel the pesticide's registration or amend the registration to require additional safeguards. 

7 U.S.C . § 136d(b) . 

53 Exec . Order No. 12,898 , 59 Fed . Reg. 7,629 (Feb. 11, 1994). 

'41d. at § 1-101 . 

55 Id. at § 3-302(a). 

Sb Exec. Order No. 13,045 , 62 Fed. Reg. 19,885 (Apr . 23, 1997). 

14 
are exposed to) ."`7 Viewed together, these two executive orders require EPA, in making 

pesticide registration and tolerance decisions, to assess pesticide drift exposures along with all 

other pesticide exposures to ensure that pesticide exposures do not disproportionately impact 

children, low income populations, and/or minority populations . 

B . EPA Has Violated Its Legal Duties by Ignoring Children's Exposures to Harmful 

Pesticides Through Drift. 

EPA's record of compliance with its mandate to protect children from all pesticide 

exposures, including drift, is dismal . In the vast majority of cases, EPA has not even examined 

pesticide drift exposures, let alone imposed protections necessary to prevent harmful exposures 

to children. 

As illustrated by its actions on chlorpyrifos, EPA has essentially applied a double 

standard, protecting urban children, but not protecting rural kids or suburban and ex-urban 

children that live or go to school near agricultural areas. Chlorpyrifos is a nerve poison that has 

been used in the United States since 1965 to kill insects in homes, schools, parks, and farms . 

59 

Chlorpyrifos is also associated with birth defects and impacts on human reproduction .s9 hi 2000, 

EPA prohibited most home and residential uses of chlorpyrifos,6° which the agency heralded as 

`'particularly good news for children, who are among the most vulnerable to the risks posed by 

pesticides." 1 However, children are also exposed to chlorpyrifos particles that drift from target 

sites during application. and vapors that drift from the fields for days or even weeks after 

" Id. at § § 1-101(b), 2-202(b). 

58 EPA, Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Chlorpyrifos , at 9-10 (Sept. 2001), 

Attachment 29 (hereinafter "Chlorpyrifos IRED"). 

59 EPA, Human Health Risk Assessment: Chlorpyrifos, at 15-16 (June 2000), Attaclunent 30 . 

'° EPA, Human Health Risk Assessment: Chlorpyrifos, at 3-10 (June 2000), Attachment 30. 

61 EPA, Administrator Carol M. Browner, Dursban Announcement, Remarks Prepared for 

Delivery June 8, 2000, Attachment 31 . 

15 
application . 

62 Unfortunately, EPA ignored and continues to disregard the harm to kids in or near 

agricultural communities when chlorpyrifos drills from farms and contaminates the air at nearby 

schools, homes, parks, and daycare centers. Even as recently as 2006, EPA re-authorized use of 

ehlorpyrifos on apples, citrus, cotton, corn, and many other crops without any protections to 

reduce drift exposures, despite considerable evidence (discussed above) that chlorpyrifos drifts 

from farms into nearby communities at alarming levels.63 

EPA's failure to protect children from pesticide drift is not limited to chlurpyrifos . For 

example: 

. Endosulfan is an organochlorine pesticide included on EPA's endocrine disruptor 

screening list and designated as a suspected endocrine disruptor by the Illinois EPA and 

the European Union. 

64 Due to its toxicity, its ability to travel far distances after 

application, and its ability, to bioaccumulatc, endosulfan has been banned in over 60 

countries around the wor1d.65 Calilornia Department of Pesticide Regulation ("CDPR") 

air monitoring has detected endosulfan drift in the air adjacent to agricultural sites at 

levels that pose toxic risks to bystanders.66 Additional air monitoring data has detected 

endosulfan in the ambient air near schools and other locations where bystanders can be 

exposed.67 Despite this evidence, EPA reregistered endosulfan in 2002 for dozens of 

food uses without considering drift exposures and their contribution to risk to children. 

6'` E .g ., Farm Worker Pesticide Project & Pesticide Action Network North America, Poisons on 

the Wind : Community Air Monitoring for Chlorpyrifos in the Yakima Valley (Dec. 2006), 

Attachment 19; Pesticide Action Network North America, Air Monitoring for Chlorp yrifos in 

Lindsay, California (July 2006), Attachment 20. 

63 EPA, Or anophosphorus Cumulative Risk Assessment - 2006 Update (Aug. 2006), 

Attachment 32. 

64 Inst. for Env't & Health, Chemicals Purported to be Endocrine Disruptors : A Compilation of 

Published Lists (Mar. 2005), Attachment 33 . 

6` See P1C Circular 29 at 399, Attachment 34 ; see also Endosulfan Draft Risk Profile , prepared 

by the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee of the Stockholm Convention ( .April 

2009), Attaclulient 35. 

66 Cal. Dep't of Pesticide Regulation, Endosulfan Risk Characterization Document Volume I 

(August 2008), Attachment 36. 

67 E .g ., Pesticide Action Network North America, Air Monitoring in Hastings, Florida : October 

1-December 6, 2007 (Sept. 2008), Attachment 17. 

16 
Both EPA and California have determined that oxydemeton-methyl ("ODM") is a 

developmental and reproductive toxicant. 68 ODM is an organophosphate registered for 

use in agriculture, primarily on Brussels sprouts, broccoli, and cauliflower, and lettuce, 69 

EPA has acknowledged that exposure to ODM may cause reproductive effects such as 

reduced fertility, viability, ovarian and testicular weights, and increased estrous cycles. '° 

The California DPR drift incident database reports 155 drift incidents associated with 

agricultural use of ODM between 1992 and 2007 in California alone. 

71 Again, EPA 

reregistered ODM in 2006 without assessing or mitigating the risks posed by drift. 

" Ethoprop is an organophosphate pesticide that EPA has classified as a likely human 

carcinogen .72 EPA has acknowledged incidents in which ethoprop drifted following 

application and caused poisoning of children and other bystanders. ~'3 A 1998 study by the 

California Air Resources Board found concentrations of ethoprop in the air at application 

sites and in the ambient air at an elementary school approximately one-quarter mile from 

the nearest agricultural felds .'`~ EPA ignored these exposures and risks when it 

reregistered ethoprop in 2006. 

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (`CDPR") determined in 1999 that 

the organophosphate methyl parathion was a toxic air contaminant ("TAC") because the 

pesticide '`may cause or contribute to increases in serious illness or death, or . . . may 

pose a present or potential hazard to human health."'' Based on air monitoring data, 

CDPR estimated that the risk to infants from application site ex 

F 

osure to methyl 

parathion far exceed what EPA typically considers acceptable .' Despite this evidence, 

EPA ignored potential child drift exposures near application sites when it made 

registration decisions for methyl parathion in 2003 and 2006 .77 

68 EPA, Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision for ODM, at 10-12 (Aug . 2002), Attachment 

37 (hereinafter "ODM IRED"); Cal. EPA, Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or 

Reproductive Toxicity, at 14 (Sept. 2009), Attachment 38 . 

69 ODIVI 1RED at 5 . Attachment 37. 

7° ODM I WED at 10, 46, Attachment 37 . 

71 C1)1'R, Crflifo rnia Pesticide Illness Query , Attachment 10. 

72 EPA, Interim Reregistration Eliaibility Decision for Ethoprop, at 14 (Sept. ?001), Attachment 

39 (hereinafter "Ethopron IRED"). 

'3 Ethoprop IRED at 35, Attachment 39. 

'4 Cal . Air Resources Bd., Final Report for the 1998 Ethoprop Air Monitoring (Dec. 1998), 

Attaclhment 40. 

'' CDPR, Toxic Air Contaminant Program, Attachment 41 . 

'6 GDPR, Evaluation of Methyl Parathion as a Toxic Air Contaminant : Executive Summary, at 

ix, Attachment 42 . 

77 See EPA, Reregistration ElivubilitkDecision for Methyl Parathion, at 23-24 (May 2003), 

Attachment 43 . 

17 
EPA's systematic failure to protect children from drift affects all children and violates the FQPA, 

which requires EPA to ensure that aggregate exposure to pesticides is sale for children,, 78 and the 

1997 Executive Order on Children's Health, which mandates that EPA protect children from 

disproportionate harm from pesticides and other environmental poisons.79 

In addition, pesticide drift has disproportionate impacts on children from low income 

households. Farmworker families tend to be poor-on average, a farmtivorker family earned an 

aiuiual income ranging from S 15,000 to $17,499 in 2003 .8° In the top five agricultural counties 

in Texas (the state with the most acres of agriculture), between 10 to 30 percent of children live 

below the poverty line .x1 Likewise, in California (the top agricultural state by revenue), between 

24 to 32 percent of children under the age of 17 live in poverty in the top three agricultural 

counties (compared with the state average poverty rate of 12 .4%).82 

Pesticide drift also has disproportionate impacts on children in minority populations . The 

'g In light of EPA's systemic failure to protect children from pesticide drift and other flaws in 

EPA's pesticide risk-benefit assessment process, a broad coalition of farmworker and public 

health groups have attempted to compel EPA to more adequately address pesticide risks through 

several lawsuits that are now pending in the federal courts. See UFW v. Adm'r., EPA, No. C04-

0099C (W.D . Wash.) (filed Jan. 13, 2004) (challenging reregistrations for AZN1 and phosmet); 

UFVI% v. Adm'r, EPA . No . C07-3950 JF (N .D . Cal.) (filed July 30, 2007) (challenging 

reregistrations for chlorpyrifos) ; PANNA v . EPA, No. C08-1814 MHP (N.D . Cal .) (filed Apr . 4, 

2008) (challenging reregistrations for tnethidathion, oxydemeton-methyl ("ODM"), 

methamidophos, and ethoprop) ; PANNA v. EPA, 08-3542 N1PH (N .D . Cal .) (tiled July 24, 2008) 

(challenging reregistrations for endosulfan); UFW v. EPA, No. C08-3595 MHP (N.D . Cal .) 

(filed July 28, 2008) (challenging reregistrations for diazinon). 

79 Exec. Order No. 13,045 , 62 Fed. Reg. 19,885 (Apr. 23, 1997). 

g° National Center for Farrmti-orker Health, Miprant and Seasonal Farmworker Demographics 

(2009), Attachment 44. 

81 United States Department of Agriculture, 2007 County-Level Poverty Rates for TX (Dec. 

2008), Attachment 45 . 

gZ Alice Larson, Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study: California 

(Sept . 2000), Attachment 46 . 

18 
vast majority of U.S. farmworkers are ol~ Latin American origin-approximately 83 percent of 

U.S . farmworkers are of Latin American ancestry . 

83 A majority of these farmworkers have 

children, 84 and these children live and go to school near the agricultural sites where their parents 

work . For example, in California over 73 percent of children attending schools within 1 .5 miles 

of sites where at least 10,000 pounds of pesticides were applied in 1998 Nvere non-white .gs 

Similarly, in 2008 approximately 53 percent of students in Washington State's top five 

agricultural counties were non-white (the statewide average was 31 percent) .g6 

The Environmental Justice Executive Order requires EPA to address disproportionate 

impacts of pesticide use on minority and low income populations, and the Child Health 

Executive Order requires EPA to address risks to children from pesticides. Contrary to these 

obligations, EPA has ignored a pesticide exposure pathway that directly and pervasively affects 

low income minority children who live near the fields . Indeed, for certain pesticides, such as 

chlorpyrifos and diazinon, EPA maintains a double-standard by protecting children from urban 

and residential uses, but ignoring exposures to children who live, play, and go to school near 

fields . These failures not only violate EPA's statutory obligations, they also violate EPA's 

obligations to address disproportionate impacts to children, minority, and low-income 

populations when it authorizes pesticide uses. 

83 United States Department of Labor, The National Agricultural Workers Survey (Oct. 2006), 

Attachment 47. 

94 Id . 

gs Environmental Working Group, Fvery Breath You Take: Airborne Pesticides in the San 

Joaquin Valley (Jan. 2001), Attachment 2-2 . 

86 School Data Direct, District-by-District Query, available at http ://www.schooldatadirect.org / 

(select "District" in the brown search box at the top of the screen, enter the district "Name" and 

"State" in the respective boxes . then click on the hyperlink for the district) (last viewed 

September 24, 2009). 

19 
ACTIONS NEEDED TO CORRECT 

EPA'S LEGAL VIOLATIONS 

By maintaining registrations for hundreds of pesticides without accounting for and 

protecting children from pesticide drift, EPA is in violation of federal pesticide laws and 

executive orders directing it to protect minority and low-income populations as well as children 

from adverse health effects . To remedy these ongoing violations of law, this petition asks EPA 

to: (1) expeditiously evaluate the exposure of children to pesticide drift and impose safeguards to 

ensure that children are protected from aggregate pesticide exposures, including drift; and 

(2) immediately adopt interim controls that prohibit use of toxic drift-prone pesticides near 

homes, schools, parks, daycare centers, and other locations where children congregate. 

I . EPA MUST CONDUCT PESTICIDE-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS OF THE RISKS TO 

CHILDREN FROM PESTICIDE DRIFT AND MODIFY PESTICIDE 

REGISTRATIONS TO ELIMINATE EXCESSIVE RISKS TO CHILDREN . 

EPA cannot register a pesticide unless it has ensured that the chemical will perform its 

intended function without causing any "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment," which 

is defined to include violations of the FQPA safety standard .87 By registering or reregistering 

pesticides without accounting for drift risks to children, EPA has overlooked a potentially 

significant route of exposure and has failed to fulfill its ongoing legal duty to protect all children 

from unsafe aggregate exposures to food-use pesticides. When a registered pesticide use poses 

unreasonable adverse effects or violates the FQPA safety standard, EPA must amend the 

registration or cancel offending uses . 

To bring its pesticide registrations into compliance with these legal obligations, EPA 

must take two steps for all FFDCA-regulated pesticides . First. EPA must fully assess the 

exposure of children to drift from registered pesticide uses and determine whether such 

" 7 U .S .C. § 136a(c)(5)(C) . 
exposures pose excessive risks. Such assessments must encompass applications of pesticides by 

ground sprayers, broadcast equipment, and aerial equipment, all of which have the potential to 

drift from application sites during and immediately after application ." In addition, depending on 

certain variables, such as the physical characteristics of the pesticide and meteorological 

conditions, pesticides can volatize for hours or days after application and drift as a vapor 

thousands of feet from application sites.g9 To address all pathways through which children may 

be over-exposed to pesticides, EPA's assessments must evaluate inhalation, oral, and dermal 

exposures to both spray drift and volatilization drift. 

Second, based on the results of the drift exposure assessments, EPA must limit pesticide 

uses as necessary to protect children from drift . Such limitations would likely take the form of 

amendments to pesticide registrations, but might also lead to cancellations of uses that pose 

particularly high risks to children . 

EPA has long recognized the need to assess drift exposures and incorporate necessary 

safeguards into pesticide registrations . For example, EPA's 2001 spray drift proposal indicated 

that the agency would conduct pesticide-by-pesticide reviews to determine "whether one or more 

no-spray zones and their distance(s) are necessary for products using available information about 

the pesticide's uses and risk assessments . "90 Likewise, in many of EPA's pesticide reregistration 

eligibility decisions, EPA specii-ically identified drift risks as a data gap needing further 

88 See Draft Spray Drift PR Notice, Attachment 6. 

89 See, ~, Ramaprasad,l ., et al . , The Washington Aerial Spray Drift Study: Assessment of OffTarget Organophosphorus Insecticide Atmospheric Movement by Plant Surface Volatilization , 

Atmospheric Environment 38, at 5703-13 (2004), Attachment 21 . 

9° Draft Spray Drift PR Notice, Attachment 6 ("EPA in its risks management decisions will 

determine whether one or more no-spray zones and their distance(s) are necessary for products 

using available information about the pesticide's uses and risk assessments ."). 

21 
assessment." When EPA was called on to protect rural children as an FQPII subpopulation and 

revoke tolerances for several specific pesticides, EPA recognized the potentially significant risks 

associated with pesticide drift and acknowledged the need to further analyze and incorporate that 

risk into EPA's aggregate exposure assessments for drift-prone pesticides. 

92 

EPA may be inclined to conduct these required drift assessments as part of FIFRA's 

pesticide registration review program, under which EPA plans to review pesticides originally 

registered before October 2007 by 2022.93 While the pesticide registration review process 

should and indeed must assess drift exposures, it is not an appropriate vehicle for correcting the 

legal violations highlighted in this petition for two reasons . First, while EPA currently plans to 

initiate registration reviews for approximately 70 pesticides per year over the next four years, the 

agency has set no dates for completing those reviews, except to say that it "expects a total of 

about 710 pesticide cases comprising 1,136 pesticide active ingredients to undergo registration 

review by 2022."9a Thirteen years is far too long to allow children to be exposed to pesticide 

drift without any EPA assessment of the risks posed to kids. Second, the registration review 

process is designed to address new evidence of risks and exposures that emerges after 2007 . In 

9~ E_.g., EPA, Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Methidathion , at 19-20 (Apr. 2002), 

Attachment 48 ("The Agency recognizes that there are many issues related to the use of 

agricultural chemicals in the general population, i .e ., spray drift exposures and exposures to farm 

worker children and farm residents . The Agency is in the process of developing guidance and 

procedures for characterizing these kinds of risks .") . 

9`' Imidacloprid ; Order Denying Objections to Issuance of Tolerance, 69 FR 30042, 30050 and 

30054-55 (May 26, 2004) ; Order Denying Objections to Issuance of Tolerances, 70 FR 46706, 

46730 (August 10, 2005). In these decisions . EPA chose not to identify farm children as a 

sensitive subpopulation under the FFDCA . This petition does not seek such a designation, but 

rather asks EPA to protect all children from the dangers of pesticide drift. Indeed, even in EPA's 

response to the petition, the agency agreed that pesticide drift exposure is a problem that needs to 

be addressed on a pesticide-specific basis . 

y ; 7 U .S .C. § 136a(g)(1)(iii)-(iv) . 

94 74 Fed . Reg . 10,576 (Mar. 1], 2009) . 

2 2 
other words, Congress assumed that all pesticide uses would be brought into compliance with the 

FQPA's protection mandates for children through the reregistration decisions completed by 

2007. This premise is faulty for drift exposures since EPA ignored such exposures entirely in 

making its reregistration decisions . 

Given this backdrop, EPA must implement an accelerated schedule for completing drift 

assessments and modifying registrations that prioritizes assessments based on the suspected 

degree of risk to children posed by the pesticide. EPA could undertake such accelerated reviews 

either through modifications to the registration review program or by utilizing other authorities . 

See, e .g ., 7 U.S.C. § 136w(a)(1) (general rulemaking authority) ; 40 C.F.R. § 154.7 (special 

review) . 

II . EPA SHOULD IMMEDIATELY ADOPT tNTERIM NO-SPRAY BUFFERS AROUND HOMES, SCHOOLS, DAYCARE CENTERS, AND PARKS TO PROTECT 

CHILDREN FROM DRIFT . 

EPA should also adopt immediate interim measures to ensure that children are not 

harmed by pesticide drift while EPA completes the pesticide-specific drift assessments. 

Specifically, the agency should impose interim no-spray buffers around locations where children 

congregate, such as schools, homes, daycare centers, and parks, to prevent unassessed pesticide 

drift exposures to children . These measures should apply to organophosphates, n-methyl 

carbamates, and all other pesticides that are (1) registered for application by ground sprayers, 

broadcast equipment, and/or aerial equipment; and (2) suspected of causing acute poisonings, 

cancer, endocrine disruption, developmental effects, and/or reproductive effects . 

A. EPA Should Take Immediate Action to Ensure that Children Are Protected From 

Pesticide Drift. 

EPA has already determined that children may be exposed to many pesticides at or near 

levels that EPA considers unsafe without assessing drift risks . Indeed, according to EPA's own 
assessments, children are possibly already, at risk of being exposed to unsafe levels of two classes 

of pesticides-organophosphates and n-methyl carbarnates .95 These classes of pesticides are 

acutely toxic nerve poisons that are associated with other serious adverse health effects, 

including endocrine disruption, cancer, and developmental and reproductive effects . In EPA's 

2006 cumulative risk assessment for organophosphates, the agency determined that the 

cumulative risk cup for organophosphates was overflowing for children aged 3 to 5 nationally, 

and also for children aged 1 to 5 in southern hlorida .y6 EPA similarly found in 2007 that the risk 

from n-methyl carbamates overflowed the cumulative risk cup for children aged 1 to 5 

nationally .97 

EPA allowed children to continue to be exposed to organophosphates and n-methyl 

carbamates at levels exceeding its regulatory thresholds by asserting that its cumulative risk 

assessments may have overstated the risks.9q This justification i5 undercut by EPA's failure to 

account for drift exposures in either the organophosphate or the n-methyl carbamate cumulative 

risk assessment . By leaving out a potentially significant route of exposure from its cumulative 

ys EPA made these findings pursuant to the FFDCA requirement that EPA assess risks of 

cumulative exposure to pesticides that share a "common mechanism of toxicity." See 21 U.S.C . 

§ 346a(b)(2)(C)-(D) . In these cumulative risk assessments, EPA considers pesticide "exposures 

from food, drinking water, and residential sources" to "approximate as closely as possible 

people's actual exposures and potential risks resulting from current uses of these pesticides in 

different parts of the country ." EPA, Assessing Pesticide Cumulative Risk (June 2008), 

Attachment 49. EPA also makes risk cup lindings for individual pesticides and, in some cases, 

has cancelled pesticide uses to ensure that exposure to those individual pesticides conforms with 

the FQPA safety standard and "fit" within their individual pesticide risk cups . E. ., EPA, 

Chlorpyrifos Facts (Feb. 2002), Attachment 50 ; EPA, Carbaryl IRED Facts (Oct. 2004), 

Attachmetlt 51 . 

96 EPA, Organophosphorus Cumulative Risk Assessment: 2006 Update, at 13 (Aug . 2006), 

Attaclunent 32 (hereinafter "OP Cunlulative Risk Assessment") . 

9' EPA, Revised N-Methyl Carbamate Cumulative Risk Assessment. at 225 (Sept. 2007), 

Attachment 52 (hereinafter "NMC Cumulative Risk Assessment") . 

9g OP Cumulative Risk Assessment at 15, Attachment 32 ; NMC Cumulative Risk Assessment at 

225 n?2, Attachment 52 . 

24 
assessment, EPA has not ensured that cumulative exposures to organophosphates and n-methyl 

carbamates comply Nvith the FQPA safety standard, The omission of drift exposures from these 

cumulative assessments is particularly troublesome because rnany organophosphate and nmethyl carbamate pesticides are prone to drift and have been implicated in reported drift 

poisoning incidents . Indeed, one of the most commonly used organophosphates, chlorpyrifos, 

has been detected in several air monitoring studies, sometimes at possibly unsafe levels . 

By failing to account for drift exposures in its organophosphate and n-methvl carbamate 

cumulative risk assessments, EPA has potentially understated children's exposure to these 

pesticides. According to EPA's own analysis, the cumulative risks Irom organophosphates and 

n-methyl carbamates is at or is even in excess of regulatory thresholds for some groups of 

children without accounting for the drift exposures . There is therefore no room left in the _risk 

cup for additional exposures to children from drift, 

B . EPA Should Impose Interim No-Application Buffer Zones to Protect Children 

From Exposure to Dangerous 1)1-i(t -Prone Pesticides, 

Petitioners ask EPA to immediately impose no-application buffer zones (designated areas 

around critical sites where pesticide applications are prohibited) around schools, homes, daycare 

centers, and parks to prevent drift exposures of children to toxic pesticides. EPA has recognized 

that such buffer zones can effectively reduce risks associated with pesticide drift. For example, 

EPA's own spray drift modeling indicates that spray drift concentrations are highest "adjacent to 

the treated area" and that levels "decrease with increasing distance from the treated area_"`'a 

Likewise, in its 2001 spray drift proposal, EPA found that no application buffer zones 

effectively reduce harmful drift exposures.'" 

99 69 Fed . Reg. at 30,055 . 

l°° Draft Spray Drift PR Notice, Attachment 6. 
Buffer zones are a workable and efficient drift mitigation strategy .l°1 Indeed, in the few 

limited instances in which the agency has considered human exposures to pesticide drift, EPA 

has required no-spray buffer zones were necessary to reduce drift exposures . For example, EPA 

recently reregistered several soil fumigants (chloropicrin, dazomet, metam sodiuni'potassium, 

methyl bromide, and iodomethane), which are easily transported in the wind because the 

pesticides have an extremely high vapor pressure and are applied as a gas to soil before planting 

or for structural pest control . 

102 Due to their acute toxicity and propensity to drift and volatilize, 

soil fumigants "have a well-documented history of causing large-scale human exposure incidents 

up to several thousand feet from treated fields ." 103 One such mass poisoning incident occurred in 

2003, when the soil fumigant chloropicrin drifted from an application site into homes and a 

daycare center that were approximately one-quarter mile away, poisoning over 165 people 

(including G people llnder the age of 14).104 To reduce exposure to these acutely toxic 

fumigants, EPA prescribed buffer zones around application sites ranging from 2_5 feet to one-half 

mile."' 

Another example is azinphos-methyl ("AZM"), an acutely toxic organophosphate 

pesticide. In 2001, without considering drift exposures, EPA found that AZVI is so dangerous 

and causes so many poisonings ol~workers that it was not eligible for reregistration under 

1°1 Declaration of D. Ken Giles, Ph .n ., at 10-11 (Nov. 22, 2002), Attachment 53 . 

1°Z See 74 Fed. Reg. 26,690 (June 3, 2009); EPA, Extension of Conditional Registration of 

lodomethane (Methyl lodide), Attachment 54 ; EPA, Amended Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision for Methyl Broiliide, at 18-19 (May 27, 2009), Attachment 55 . 

103 EPA, Amended R_eregistration Eligibility Decision for Methyl Bromide , at 18-19 (May 27, 

2009), Attachment 55 . 

104 Center for Disease Control, Brief Report: Illness Associated with Drift of Chloropicrin Soil 

Fumigant into a Residential Area (Aug. 20, 2004), Attachment 56. 

'us EPA, Buffer Zone Fact Sheet (May 27, 2009), Attachment 57 . 

26 
FIFRA's unreasonable adverse effects standard. 

106 EPA cancelled dozens of AZti1 uses and 

allowed other uses to continue for an additional four years to allow growers to shift to 

alternatives, 107 At the end of this transition period, EPA again found all AZM uses were 

ineligible for reregistration due to the nerve poisoning risks to workers . However, EPA allowed 

some AZM uses to continue during a six-year phase-out (ending in 2012) with additional 

mitigation required to reduce risks during the phase-out period. 108 in identifying appropriate 

mitigation, EPA used the AgDRIFT model to conduct a cursory examination of the efficacy of 

buffer zones and ultimately imposed 60-foot no-use buffers around houses and other occupied 

dwellings for all uses of AZLI.I°9 Although this assessment was limited to dermal and oral 

ingestion exposures (it did not consider inhalation exposures), and indicated that buffers larger 

than the 60-foot buffer ultimately imposed were required, "° EPA's decision to impose the 60-

foot buffer is an acknowledgment that no-spray buffers around sensitive sites can protect 

children and other bystanders from pesticide drift exposures. 

I 1 I 

Other federal agencies have similarly found that no-application buffer zones are an 

effective method for minimizing pesticide drift. For example, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service ("NMrS'') recently issued two biological opinions concluding that three 

organophosphate pesticides (chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion), and three carbamate 

106 EPA, Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Azinphos-Methyl, at 55 (Oct. 2001), 

Attachment 5 8 . 

1°' Id. 

1°g EPA, Final Decisions for the Remaining Uses of Azinphos-methyl, at 1 (Nov. 2006), 

Attachment 59. 

1°9 EPA, Final Decisions for the Remaining Uses of Azinphos-methyl, at 1 (Nov. 16, 2000), 

Attachment 59. 

11° EPA, Determination oCB uffcr Zoncs for AZ.M Applications, at 2 (Oct. 2006), Attachment 60 . 

1" EPA, Final Decisions for the Remaining ilses of Azinphos-methyl, at 8 (Nov. 16, 2006), 

Attachment 59 . 

27 
pesticides (carbaryl, carbofi.iran, and methoinyl) are jeopardizing the survival and recovery of 

endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead populations in Washington, Oregon, and 

California . " `' To reduce the movement of these pesticides from application sites into salmonbearing waters, NMFS prescribed no-application buffers ranging from 50 to 1,000 feet. 1 13 

NMFS has also issued several biological opinions prescribing buffers from salmon and steelhead 

habitat for aerial, ground spraying, and broadcast spraying of herbicides in connection with 

Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service noxious weed control programs.' 14 

In addition, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, federal courts have ordered EPA to 

impose buffer zones around wildlife habitat while the agency develops and implements 

pesticide-specific mitigation measures. 115 The first such case involved threatened and 

endangered salmon and steelhead . Based on evidence demonstrating the efficacy of no-spray 

buffers to lessen the migration of pesticides into rivers and streams, and scientific evidence and 

past practice, a federal district court directed EPA to impose no-spray bulters of 60 feet for 

112 NMFS, Bioloeical Opinion : Environmental Protection Agency Registration of Pesticides 

Containing Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon and Malathion (Nov. 2008), Attachment 61 (hereinafter "OP 

Biological Opinion"); NMFS, Biological Opinion : Environmental Protection Agency 

Registration of Pesticides Containing CarbarYl, Carbofuran, and Methomyl (Apr. 2009), 

Attachment 62 (hereinafter `' NMC Biological Opinion ") . 

113 OP Biological Opinion at 393-96, Attachment 61 ; NMC Biological Opinion at 489-91, 

Attaclul1ent 62 . EPA recently responded to the first of these decisions with a plan to implement 

buffers ranging from 100 to 1,000 feet from salmon habitat for chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and 

malathion. EPA, Response to NMFS November 18, 2008, Final Biological Opinion (Sept . 10, 

2009), Attachment 63. 

114 ET~., NMFS, Nez Pcrce National Forest Noxious Weeds Programmatic Biological Opinion 

(Jun. 2.009), Attachment 64 ; NMFS, Reinitiation of Bureau of Land Management's 2002 

Noxious Weeds Programmatic Biological Opinion (Jul. 2007), Attachment 65; NMFS, Vale 

District Noxious Weed Control Program, FY2003-2013,1Jnion, Wallowa, Grant, and Umatilla 

Counties Biological Opinion (May 2003), Attaclunent 66. 

1 15 See Wash . Toxics Coal. v . EPA, No. CO 1-0132 (NNI .D. Wash . Jan. 22, 2004) (order), 

Attachment 67; Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Johnson, No. 02-1580-JSW (N.D. Cal. Oct . 20, 

2006) (order), Attaclutient 68; see also Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, No . 07-2794-JCS 

(N .D. Cal . June 30, 2009) (Stipulated Injunction and Proposed Order), Attachment 69. 

28 
ground applications and 300 feet for aerial applications .' 16 The Ninth Circuit upheld this 

injunction imposing interim protection while EPA brings its pesticide registrations into 

compliance with legal requirements. 

117 Ultimately, these interim buffers proved to be too small 

to prevent harm to the salmon and steelhead and to comply with the law for the organophosphate 

and carbamate pesticides that have since undergone full review under the ESA . 118 

Some state and local jurisdictions have also adopted buffer zones to protect children and 

other populations from pesticides. For example, in North Carolina, pesticide applications are 

prohibited within 100 feet of residences, and aerial applications are prohibited within 300 feet of 

schools, hospitals, nursing homes, churches, and businesses.' IQ New Jersey has also prohibited 

aerial application of pesticides within 100 feet of certain residences and 300 feet ol~ 5chools, 

hospitals, nursing homes, churches, and other buildings .' 20 And numerous counties in California 

have adopted no-spray buffers of various sizes around homes and schools . 

121 

Petitioners ask CPA to impose similar no-spray buffer zones for toxic drift-prone 

pesticides around places where children congregate such as schools, homes, daycare centers, and 

parks . The interim buffer zone should be at least 60 feet from these sensitive sites for ground 

spraying (including spraying with ground boom and air-blast equipment).12` For aerial 

116 Wash. Toxies Coal. v . EPA, No . CO 1-0132 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 22, 2004) (order), Attachment 

67. 

117 Wash. Toxics Coal. v . EPA, 413 F .3d 1024, 1035 (9th Cir. 200-5) . 

118 OP Biological Opinion at 393-96, Attachment 61 ; NMC Biological Opinion at 489-91, 

Attachment 62 . 

"y N .C. Admin. Code tit . 2, r. 9L 1005(b) . (e) . 

"° N .J . Admin. Code tit . 7, § 30-10 .6(q), (s). 

12' See PANNA, Secondhand Pesticides: Airborne Pesticide Drift in California, at 45-46 (2003), 

Attachment 70 . 

lz` See Declaration ol~ D. Ken Giles, Ph .D ., at 9 (Nov. 22, 2002), Attachment 53 . 

29 
applications, EPA should impose a 300-foot horizontal no spray buffer around these sensitive 

sites.1`1 

These 60-foot and 300-foot buffers will reduce spray drift risks considerably, l`' but they 

will likely be insufficient to fully protect children from drift. For example, in EPA assessing the 

required 60-fuot buffer zones for AZM, the agency recognized that larger buffers may be needed 

to ensure that children were not exposed to ground applications of AZM at levels exceeding what 

EPA typically considers acceptable, particularly from air-blast applications (although EPA 

ultimately declined to implement the larger buffers). 

12-1 Many drift-prone pesticides are more 

toxic than AZM and are applied at higher rates than those authorized for AZM, indicating that 

buffers even larger than those needed for AZM may be necessary . 1n addition, the interim 

buffers sought in this petition are designed to protect from spray drift only; they do not address 

the volatilization drift exposures. It is therefore critical that, in addition to imposing the 60- and 

300-foot interim buffers, EPA expeditiously complete pesticide-specific drift evaluations that 

assess both spray and volatilization drift exposures and determine whether larger buffers, and 

other mitigation are necessary to protect children from pesticide drift. 

EPA has various mechanisms at its disposal to instate no-spray buffers that reduce drift 

exposures to children. For example, EPA has long resorted to the issuance of notices (called 

"pesticide registration notices" or "PR notices") to inform registrants of label amendments that 

are necessary to ensure compliance with FIFRA and to avoid cancellation or misbranding 

proceedings . EPA described this process when it initiated the Label Improvement Program, 

1`3 id 

1'`4 Id . 

1'`S EPA, Determination of Buffer Zones for AZ'VI Applications, at 1-3 (Oct. 2006), Attachment 

60. 

30 
which ,was "designed to upgrade pesticide labels in certain areas that contribute to the protection 

of health and environmental safety" but "are not adequately addressed in present labeling, and 

cannot await the development of registration standards." 126 EPA has utilized this PR notice 

process to protect the public and the environment from pesticides. For example, EPA issued PR 

notices limiting pesticide uses that pose dangers to farmworkers,127 and restricting rodenticide 

and termiticide uses and formulations that can harin children, pets, and wildlife ."' EPA should 

exercise that same authority to ensure that children are protected from pesticide drift. 

Alternatively, EPA could impose the no-spray buffers under its broad authority "to 

prescribe regulations to carry out the provisions of' the statute .129 For example, under this 

authority. EPA adopted the "Worker Protection Standard" ("WPS"), a suite of generally 

applicable regulations designed to reduce illness and injury to workers and their families, 

including through measures to lessen drift . 

130 The requirements imposed through the WPS 

regulations must be incorporated into FIFRA pesticide labels, which makes them enforceable 

undcr 11FRA . 

131 

12' 45 Fed . Reg . 37,884, 37,884 (June 5, 1980). 

127 EPA. Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 83-2 : Pesticide Label Improvement Program for 

Farmworker Safety (Mar . 1983); see also EPA, Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 95-5 : 

Labeling_ Revisions Required by the Worker Protection Standard for Sale or Distribution of 

Certain Agricultural Pesticides After October 23, 1995 (Sept . 1995), Attachment 71 . 

128 EPA, Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 94-7 : Label Improvement Program for the Revision 

uncy's Policies on the of Use Directions for Commensal Rodenticidcs and Statement of the Ay 

I_1se of Rodenticide Bait Stati ons (Sept . 1994), Attachment 72; EPA, Pesticide Registration (PR) 

Notice y6-7 : Ternniticide Labeling (Oct. 1996), Attachment 7' ) . 

'Zy See 7 U .S.C . § 136w(a)(1). 

'3'40 C.F .R. y § 170.1-170.250. 

"' 40 C.F.R. § 156.206(b) ; see also 40 C .r .R. § 170 .210(a) (Requiring pesticide handlers and 

handler employers to "assure that no pesticide is applied so as to contact, either directly or 

through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped 

handler .") . 

31 
CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, Petitioners petition EPA to take the following actions : 

1) Conduct pesticide-specific drift assessments for all pesticides with the potential to 

drift and impose measures necessary to protect children from hannful drift 

exposures; and 

2) For toxic drift-prone pesticides, including organophosphates and n-methyl 

carbamates, immediately adopt interim no-spray buffer zones of at least 60 feet 

for ground applications and 300 feet for aerial applications around areas where 

children may congregate such as homes, schools, parks, playfields, and daycare 

centers . 

Please do not hesitate to call us if you have questions or would like to discuss the 

contents of this petition . 

Respectfully submitted this 13`h day ol Dcto er, 2009. 

atti Goldman 

LJanette K. Brimmer 

Earthjustice 

705 Second Avenue, Suite 203 

Seattle, WA 98104 

(206) 343-7340 

(206) 343-1526 jFA.XJ 

pgoldman(Jearthjustice .org 

jbrimmer(q-),carthjustice .org 
Virginia Ruiz 

Tarmworker Justice 

1126 - 16'}' Street, N.W ., Suite 270 

Washington, D .C . 20036 

(202) 293-5420 

(202) 293-5427 fFAA7 

vruiz(a,farmworkerjustice .org 

Counsel for United Farmworkers, Pesticide Action 

Network of ~1Vorth America, Physicians for Social 

Responsibilitv, A1omsRising, Pineros y Ccrmpesinos 

Unidos del Noroeste, Sea Afar Community Heallh 

Center, California Rural Legal Assistance 

Foundation, and Farm Labor Organizing 

Committee 
Page I of I 

From Origin ID : LKEA (206) 343-7340 

CATHERINE HAMBORG 

EARTHJUSTICE 

705 SECOND STREET 

203 HOGE BUILDING 

SEATTLE, WA 98104 

EXWE 

SHIP T0: (202) 564-4700 HILL SENDER 

LISA JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW 

RM 3000 ARIEL RIOS BLDG 

WASHINGTON, DC 20004 I 

Ship Date : 130CT09 

ActWgt: 1 .0 LB 

CAD 38871831INET9090 

Accountft: S 

**htF-M 

Delivery Address Bar Code 

~IInIINllllllllllllll'I~IIIIIII 

Ref # 1647 

Invoice # 

P0 ; 

Dept # 

111111 11111 IIINIIII 111111111111 

WED -140CT A1 

TRK# 

0201 7970 1550 1689 FIRST OVERNIGHT 

ASR 

X1 RDVA I i II I I 

20004 

DC-US 

DCA 11 11 11 I 1 1 11 ii 

After printing this label 

' , Use the 'Print' button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer . 

2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal line . 

3 Place label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned. 

Warning, Use only the printed original label for shipping . Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could 

result in additional billing charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number. 

Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx Service Guide, available on fedex.com.FedEx will not be 

responsible for any claim in excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss, damage, delay, non-delivery,misdelivery,or misinformation, unless 

you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge, document your actual loss and file a timely claim- Limitations found in the current FedEx Service 

Guide apply . Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss, including intrinsic valueof the package, loss of sales, income interest, profit, attorney's fees, 

costs, and other forms of damage whether direct, incidental,consequential, or special is limited to the greater of $100 or the authorized declared value 

Recovery cannot exceed actual documented Ioss,Max :mum for items of extraordinary value is $500, e g jewelry, precious metals, negotiable 

Instruments and other items listed in our ServiceGuide . Written claims must be filed within strict time limits, see current FedEx Service Guide . 

https ://wwNv.fedex.convshipping)`htmlien/%PrintIFrame .html 10/13i2009