www.pesticidepolicy.org

August 31 , 2007 Kathy Davis Cert ification and Worker Protection Branch Field and External Affairs Division Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460 RE: Comments on Position Papers Relating to Worker Protection Standards (W PS) De ar M s
. Davis : The Pesticide Policy Coalition (PPC or “the Coalition” ) appreciates t he opportunity to provide input to the deliberations of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) related to proposed regulatory amendments to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS, 40 C.F.R. 170) and Certification of Pesticide Applicators (40 C.F.R. 1 71). The PPC represents food, agriculture, pest management and related organizations that support transparent, fair and science
- based regulation of pest management. The PPC me mbers include: nationwide and regional farm, commodity, specialty crop, and si lviculture organizations, cooperatives, food processors and marketers, pesticide manufacturers, distributors, formulators, pest
- and vector
- control operators, research organizations, and other interested parties. The PPC serves as a forum for the review, discussion, development and advocacy of pest management policies and issues important to our members. The comments provided below represent areas of “common ground” among the members of the Coalition

. Individual members may be providing the Agency with a dditional or more specific information on any or all specific topics available for comment. Standards for use of RUPs by uncertified applicators (C&T 3 ) The PPC believes that by enactment of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Congress intended uncertified applicators applying restricted use pesticides ( RUPs ) to be competent persons working under the supervision of a certified applicator. In addition, b y making such a categorical distinction of applicators in the statute , Co ngressPPC Comments on C&T and WP S proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 2 of 8

2 clearly envisioned different level s of competency between certified and uncertified applicators. The PPC believes that setting some reasonable standards may improve protections. Some basic training for the supervised applicator may be appropriate, but this should be flexible and risk
- based. The PPC supports the Agency’s proposal that experience should be considered a component of competency and that this may be acknowledged in differing levels of supervision. However, t he C oalition does not suppo rt any requirements that a certified applicator be on
- site or at a maxi mu m distance from the person being supervised. We believe that the person being supervised should be required to have the ability to immediately communicate with the certified applicator. Minimum Age for Pesticide Applicators (C&T 5) EPA should only be considering this issue in the context of RUPs. PPC supports consideration of esta b lish ing a mi nim um age of 18 to purchase, handle or apply RUPs occupationally, or a minimum age of 16 to purchase, handle, or apply RUPs on a family farm or family owned business. Recertification Requirements (C&T 7 ) Aside from section 11 of FIFRA , which prohibits EPA from requiring a written exam to gauge competency of private applicators, Congress granted EPA the authority to set parameters for certification of applicators. Under 40 CFR § 171.11, EPA sets requirements for certification of applicators in States without federally approved plans. Under this provision, federal private certifications expi re after four years and commercial certifications after three years
. 1 The current regulations, therefore, already address EPA’s question regarding frequency of recertification. We urge the Agency to avoid more frequent recertification requirements. W it h respect to other more specific aspects of certification core competencies versus category specific requirements and online recertification, we encourage EPA to support the least burdensome, most flexible requirements possible. If EPA, with support of State regulatory authorities, decides to refine some of these specific elements, we urge the Agency to allow for appropriate transition periods so changes can be implemented with as little disruption as possible. Information on Pesticide Hazards (WPS 1) T he W PS and reregistration process has resulted in major risk reductions for agricultural workers. T he reregistration process has resulted in the cancellation of a number of pesticides , the classification of some pesticides as RUP s , reductions in applicati on rates and frequencies, longer retreatment intervals, more stringent PPE requirements, use of mandatory closed application systems, and longer reentry intervals. The information EPA cites to support the need for revisions to regulation predates these im portant changes under reregistration

.

1 40 C.F.R. § 171.11(c)(4), (d)(2)PPC Comments on C&T and WP S proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 3 of 8

3 Other data cited, such as the North Carolina study by Das et. al. (2001) , demonstrate s enforcement challenges

. Imposing additional requirements will not correct this situation. EPA must instead be committed to better enforcement of existing regulations. We do not agree that workers face significant risks because they do not have access to adequate hazard information for specific pesticides. Moreover, the Agency has not demonstrated how creation of additional information materials will enhance worker protections. Pesticide labels and M aterial Safety Data Sheets (M SDS ) are readily available and provide workers with all of the information needed

. Employers could maintain MSDS material at the centralized location with other WPS materials (pesticide safety poster and application information). Creation of additional pesticide hazard information is costly , burdensome , and potentially confusing to workers

. Moreover, adding additional hazard information to the labeling o r MSDS (e.g., the Global Harmonization System (GHS) effort) will require further education and training for all, placing a large burden on the already limited resources of those who must implement such training. To the extent that the Agency insists on de velopment of additional materials, EPA should coordinate with USDA to ensure responsible production, distribution and maintenance of such materials. Involving the registrants, as EPA proposes, will likely result in cost shifts to employers and other end u sers. Regarding EPA’s concern about potential “intimidation”, the PPC would be supportive of the Agency establishing a toll
-free telephone line specifically for pesticide concerns
. Such an approach could also be used by EPA to assess the magnitude and nature of real world issues prior to proposing regulations based on intuition. Wo rkers should learn the meaning of particular symbols through proper education and training

. We believe u se of illustrations , such as skull and crossbones , is inappropriate , as such symbols may be confused with the symbol’s use in other settings

. Training Administration Issues (WPS 2) Options for re
-training intervals and grace period amendment With respect to op tions for re
-training intervals, the PPC supports reducing the retraining interval to three years. In many sectors, ag riculture workers already receive more frequent training simply as a function of their mobile employment. However, we do not see the need for re training at s horter intervals (e.g., annual) , since it would be burdensome and may be so repetitive that it becomes ineffective. A refresher training option may be a viable alternative to annual retraining

. The PPC does not support the elimination of the grace period. Elimination of the grace period is impracticable for small farmers as they may need to employ outside resources to conduct training on the first day workers arrive

. Options for competent trainers Video
- based training must rem ain an option. Wh ile training by a competent instructor may be more effective than a video alone, professionally produced videos guarantee a consistent and high quality presentation. The use of videos is the most cost
- effective and practical way toPPC Comments on C&T and WP S proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 4 of 8

4 assure topics are properly and consistently covered. Trainer availability and l anguage barriers are significant challenge s for agricultural employers

. There simply may not be a large enough pool of trainers with the knowledge and language skills to meet the demand. Trainer education should be encouraged, and EPA should work w ith States to ensure availability of materials to support such programs, but a regulatory requirement will only exacerbate the shortage of available trainers. Finally, advances in information technology, such high speed internet access and streaming video , will only increase the value of leveraging these technologies to provide cost effective training programs. Options for recordkeeping The PPC supports recordkeeping requirements for pesticide safety training (PST) for a period of up to two years. We do not support requirements to submit PST records to S tate lead agencies

. Expanded Safety Training Content (WPS 3) The P P C believes parents should be informed of measures to protect their famil ies and children from pesticide exposure, but does not agree that this information should be added to the current WPS occupational training material. EPA could develop this information which could then be made into brochures for parents to take and read at home. PPC believes that science
- based, helpful informatio n should be made generally available to all pesticide users as take
- home materials. Miscellaneous WPS Issues (WPS 4 ) Expansion of WPS to cover dairy, livestock, landscape, and maintenance workers using pesticides T he P P C encourages the EPA to consider realistic potential risks and refrain from im posing complex regulations to any one sector when distinct use s or concerns d o not exist

. For example, agricultural style reentry restrictions are not realistic for lawn, landscape and structural pest control ap plications. Products in these areas are regulated to reduce reentry exposure through applicable requirements for registration.
D evelop ment of regulatory definitions for closed system , enclosed cab , gree nhouse , and commercial purposes The P P C supports the develop ment of definitions for the terms stated above to clarify issues, but encourages EPA to ensure that these definitions are widely accepted by other agencies , knowledgeable professionals , and other government regulation s associated with the terms. Anti
- retaliation provisions The P P C is concerned that EPA is going beyond its authority by addressing anti
- retaliation regulations. This is clearly the purview of other federal authorities.PPC Comments on C&T and WP S proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 5 of 8

5 Clarifications related to the exceptions for “wide
- area publi c pest control” and “in a manner not directly related to the production of agricultural plants” The P P C supports EPA’s interest in clarifying the language as long as the original intent of the rule remains unchanged. Clarification of the owner exemption and the concerns related to the immediate family definition EPA should clarify what is mean t by “and the concerns related to the immediate family.” Does the Agency intend to change the rule, clarify the exemption, or both? If the Agency intends to chang e the rule to address “concerns related to the immediate family”, the P P C believes that EPA must provide a clear rationale for proposing the change. Expansion of restricted areas to “buffer zones” The PPC opposes expansion of restricted areas to “buffer zones” because EPA has not provided any data or assessments justifying this change in the regulations. The need for and establishment of “ buffer zones” is dealt with appropriately during risk assessment and review
related processes for each pesticide. En try Restrictions The W PS already contains requirements for field posting and notifi cation that is sensible and protective of worker health base on REIs. Existing point
-of
- entry requi re ments provide clear and understandable information for workers. The P PC strongly opposes the proposal of posting signs every 100 feet. This proposal is overly burdensome and will provide no additional benefits. The PPC also strongly opposes the use of the skull and crossbones symbol to replace the man with the upraised ha nd. The use of the skull and crossbones will only serve s to suggest to the public that the agricultural operation itself or the crop being grown there is unsafe

. Additionally, the skull and cross bones caption has long been used specifically to identify C ategory I toxicity products and will result in confusion. Point
-of
- entry signs should contain only the most critical information of immediate im portance. Replicating general information at every point of entry undermines efforts by employers to stress t he im portance of reliance on the central location as the primary location for the most up
-to
- date information on a variety of issues. Require that posted application information contains the time the application was completed and the start and end times The P P C opposes this proposal

. The pertinent information for the worker is the expiration tim e of the REI. It is not clear how EPA proposes that such information be provided. This information is already available at the centralized location with other records . EPA should not pursue a requirement to add this information to point
- of
- entry signs. Posted pesticide safety informationPPC Comments on C&T and WP S proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 6 of 8

6 The PPC disagrees with EPA’s assertion that “m any workers do not have an easy access to the ‘ central location ’

. ” The P P C b elieves that access to information at a central location is in the best interest of workers. If workers do not have meaningful access to required information, then the location selected does not meet the necessary criteria. Employers should select locati ons that are in fact “central” and reasonably accessible to workers. Again, concerns regarding worker accessibility are likely enforcement issues. Workers must be encouraged to use appropriate central location s as a source for meaningful information . EPA’s proposal will undermine such efforts. Point
-of
- entry signs should contain only the most critical information of immediate im portance. Replicating general information at every point

–of
- entry undermines efforts by employers to stress the importance of reliance on the central location as the primary location for the most up
-to
- date information on a variety of issues. Additionally, EPA’s assumption that workers are more likely to read a poster that is place d at a field entrance is highly questionable

. T he field entrance is most often an open area, exposed to full sun and climatic conditions. The temperature may not be favorable to encourage workers to read a poster. The poster could deteriorate rapidly due to environmental conditions. Consequently, th e PPC opposes this proposal. Require all farms to have an area where workers can change into work clothes and store clean clothing. Hand washing water, soap and towels must also be available at these sites. The PPC opposes this proposal as it would be overly burdensome , and, in many cases, not feasible

. Compliance would require construction of new facilities at most production farms. Construction creates difficulties for small farming operations that rent farmland. Some agricultural operations are not farms in the traditional sense of the word (e.g., forestry operations), so providing elaborate “nearby” facilities is not feasible. In addition, it is unclear what the Agency means by “change into work clothing and store clean clothing”

. Is the Agency suggesting that the employer should provide work clothing (uniforms) or launder clothes at the site ? Many farms exist in remote areas without access to uniform providers/laundering services , or needed utilities

. Again, this provision is cost prohibitive to employers

. No valid scientific data has been provided to justify amending the regulations and imposing additional these significant infrastructure costs on employers. Education of workers is the key to prevent the potential take
- home exposures the Age ncy is trying to avoid. Require employers, in cases of suspected pesticide exposure to a worker, a worker’s family me mber or bystander, to provide pesticide application information and a copy of the label(s) and MSDS or information sheets to the affected person, his/her representative or a health care professional, upon request, within two business days or within one hour in the event of medical emergency.PPC Comments on C&T and WP S proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 7 of 8

7 The P P C supports clarification of the term “promptly” contained in the regulations, but the proposal goes too far by including “family”, “bystander” and “his/her representative”. EPA should limit changes to clarification of “promptly”. The regulation should also make it clear to MSDS and pesticide labels are readily available via the internet and this should be reinforced in education and training. Require respirator fit
-testing, training, and medical monitoring and cholinesterase testing The P P C believes W PS training adequately provides training for handlers to fit
-test their respirators. Adding a questionnaire (OSHA medical monitoring) produces additional forms and time. Who will maintain the forms? What do they accomplish in providing a safe work environment? Wh o will have access to the forms? This proposal appears to be more appropriate for risk assessment discussion, and does not appear to enhance worker protection. Requiring medical monitoring is very problematic

. Medical monitoring raises legal issues associated with personal privacy and the protection of medical information

. Who would b ear the costs of such activities? Additionally, m any activities and exposures unrelated to pesticides can significantly im pact cholinesterase levels , and current measurement technology cannot distinguish between pesticide and non
- pesticide exposures. Mon itoring currently being done in C alifornia and W ashington has not demonstrated that there are significant problems that justify this very expensive undertaking being implemented nationwide

. Public and private dollars are better spent on training workers to follow the label directions and responsible use activities. The recommendations related to medical monitoring would be cost prohibitive for both employers and States , and would provide little if any measurable public health benefit. Available data dem onstrate that elevated cholinesterase incidents typically involve failure of workers to follow label directions. Consequently, this issue is more appropriately addressed through improvements in training. The PPC opposes mandatory medical monitoring being included in WP S

. Crop Advisor Issues (WPS 5 ) The PPC supports maintaining current exemptions for crop advisors under the WP S. Further, the PPC supports the reasonable changes noted under Option #2 , which would allow employees to enter a field for “no m ore than ten minutes

... during the REI unless full PPE and other applicable protections are provided

. ” Clarify REI Exceptions (WPS 6) Growers and users need maxi mu m flexibility to reenter fields to perform tasks in a timely manner. Clarifications which e nable their reentry in a timely manner are strongly supported. The Agricultural Ree n try Task Force has developed data that show which activities should be classified as “no” and “low” contact activities and do not jeopardize worker health. PPC supports exceptions in 40 CFR § 170.112 that allow critical activit ies during the restrictedPPC Comments on C&T and WP S proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 8 of 8

8 entry interval. If clarification of vague language is necessary, we encourage EPA to ensure that revisions do not jeopardize these critical exemptions. Thank you for consid ering our comments , and we look forward to further dialogue with EPA and other stakeholders on future WPS revisions. Sincerely,

Rebeckah Freeman Adcock Ray McAllister/Angus Kelly Chair , Pesticide Policy Coalition Co
- Ch airs, PPC Technical Committee