Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0673-0034
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-11-17T05:00Z

AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

December 2-5, 2008

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone: (703) 305-5805

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0673

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Associated with Worker Reentry Exposure Assessment

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures – Sharlene
Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:10 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Steven
Heeringa, Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Chair and Janice
Chambers, Ph.D., DABT, ATS, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Session
Chair

9:20 A.M.	Welcome and Opening Remarks –Tina Levine, Ph.D., Director,
Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA 

9:30 A.M.	Occupational Exposure and Crop-Activity Grouping/Clustering

	Jeff Dawson and Jeff Evans, Health Effects Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs, EPA

11:30 P.M.	LUNCH

12:30 A.M.	Agricultural Reentry Task Force 

	Development of Postapplication Exposure Data and the Transfer
Coefficient Database

3:00 P.M.	BREAK

3:45 P.M.  	Review of ARTF Proposal including Mixed-Modeling as a Method
for Review and “No TC” Classification:  EPA

		Matthew Crowley, Philip Villanueva, and Jeff Dawson, Health Effects
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

5:30 P.M.      ADJOURN

	 



AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

December 2-5, 2008

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone: (703) 305-5805

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0673

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Associated with Worker Reentry Exposure Assessment

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures 

Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy, EPA 

9:05 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members 

	Janice Chambers, Ph.D., DABT, ATS, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
Session Chair

9:15 A.M.      Review of ARTF Proposal: California Department of
Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) 

Joseph Frank, Ph.D., CDPR

10:00 A.M.	BREAK

10:15 A.M.	Workday Duration and Exposure/Risk Assessment: EPA

Matthew Crowley, Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs,
EPA  	 

11:45 P.M. 	Workday Duration and Exposure/Risk Assessment: CalDPR

Joseph Frank, Ph.D., California Department of Pesticide Regulation 

12:15 P.M.	LUNCH

1:30 P.M.	Public Comments 

2:45 P.M.	BREAK

3:00 P.M.	Public Comments cont’d

4:00 P.M.	Charge to the Panel Topic A:  Crop-Activity
Grouping/Clustering

In 1995, the Agency issued a data call-in (DCI) notice requiring the
development of information on the exposure potential associated with
labor activities in agriculture which occur in previously treated areas
(e.g., harvesting).  The central premise in the development and
collection of such exposure monitoring data is that activities which
exhibit similar magnitudes and patterns of exposure can be grouped
together for exposure assessment purposes.  It would also follow that
crop-activity combinations not actually monitored, but that were similar
from both ergonomic and agronomic perspectives, can be represented by
those that were monitored.  Based on this premise, the Agency has
identified several key factors for consideration by the Panel.  They
include the identification of labor activities in agriculture,
evaluation of the possible grouping approaches for similar crop-activity
combinations, and categorization of certain activities as no/low contact
in the Agency’s Worker Protection Standard (40CFR170).  Specifically,
the Agency identified the following issues for the Panel to consider:

QUESTION 1: Please comment on the strengths and limitations of the
approaches and data sources used to identify the universe of hand labor
activities for exposure assessment purposes.  Please identify any
activities that EPA has not listed for the crops included in the scope
of the DCI.	

QUESTION 2: The ARTF has recommended various crop-activities be grouped
together or clustered for the purposes of estimating exposure and has
proposed and conducted or purchased one or more exposure monitoring
studies to be used to represent each cluster.  The regulatory agencies
also agree with the concept of clustering like crop-activity
combinations for this purpose.  Please comment on the following:

The methods used by ARTF for the purposes of creating clusters for
exposure assessment purposes.

Statistical, agronomic, or other support for or against (1) the
ARTF-proposed clusters; (2) the Agency evaluation of the ARTF-proposed
clusters, and (3) the Agency-suggested alternative cluster schemes
outlined below.  Please include the rationale and reasoning for any
Panel-recommended changes or modifications.  The SAP Review Code in the
list refers to Table 3 (attached), which provides a summary of the ARTF
clusters, the Agency-suggested alternatives, and relevant page numbers
in the Agency’s background document.  

Hairy Leaf Field Crops (clusters HH, HHt, and HS) [SAP Review Code A]

Smooth-leaf Field Crops (clusters SH, SSR, SSS, SW and Sx) [SAP Review
Code B]

Waxy-leaf Field Crops (clusters WIH, WIS, and Wm) [SAP Review Code C]

Orchard Crops

Cluster OH and the Agency suggestion for a separate cluster for thinning
[SAP Review Code D-1]

Clusters OHn and OW crop [SAP Review Codes D-2 and D-4]

Cluster OP [SAP Review Code E-3]

Trellis Crops

Cluster THb [SAP Review Code E-1]

Cluster THg and the Agency suggestions to further separate into clusters
for hand harvesting wine grapes (THwg) and table/raisin grapes (THtg) as
well as utilizing the hand harvesting table/raisin grape cluster to
represent girdling [SAP Review Code E-2]

Cluster TP and the Agency suggestion to group with cluster OP (as shown
in Figure 31 of the Agency’s background document) [SAP Review Code
E-3]

Cluster Tx [SAP Review Code E-4]

Greenhouse and Nursery Crops

Clusters GHf and GHv [SAP Review Code F-1]

Cluster GN and the Agency suggestion to have an additional cluster for 
hand-harvesting nursery crops (GHn) [SAP Review Code F-2]

Crop Irrigation (cluster I) [SAP Review Code G]

Mechanical Harvesting Cotton (clusters CHp, CHm, and CHt) [SAP Review
Code H]

Turf (clusters DH and DM) [SAP Review Code I]

5:30 P.M.	ADJOURN



AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

December 2-5, 2008

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone: (703) 305-5805

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0673

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Associated with Worker Reentry Exposure Assessment

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Thursday, December 4, 2008

9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures 

Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy, EPA 

9:05 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members 

	Janice Chambers, Ph.D., DABT, ATS, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
Session Chair

9:10 A.M. 	Follow-up From Previous Day’s Discussion 

	Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA 

9:30 A.M.	Charge to the Panel Topic A:  Crop-Activity
Grouping/Clustering cont’d

	

QUESTION 3: As indicated in the background document, the Agency
recognizes the limitations associated with using certain statistical
tests (such as the nonparametric Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis tests) to
provide a broad rationale for the separation or combination of studies
to form clusters.  Specifically, these tests do not adequately account
for or consider a number of complex features of the data such as
repeated measurements on the same worker and nesting.   Again, as stated
in the text, a mixed-model approach that incorporates the hierarchical
nature of the data is likely to be more appropriate and to more
definitively address the issues of interest regarding the degree to
which specified crop-activity combinations might be combined.  In
Exhibit F, the Agency provides a case study example of this alternate
(mixed model) approach for determining reasonable groupings of transfer
coefficients (TCs) from exposure studies involving various crop
activities thought to be ergonomically and/or agronomically similar.

The Agency believes the proposed approach illustrated in Exhibit F uses
more appropriate statistical and quantitative procedures for determining
which exposure monitoring studies can or should be combined.  Please
discuss thoughts and/or concerns with the analytical approach outlined
in Exhibit F and on the annotated SAS code provided as an attachment to
Exhibit F.  Please provide feedback on the results of the case study
which indicates that it would not be inappropriate to consider TC values
associated with hand harvesting activities in orchards to be distinct
from TC values associated with hand thinning activities in orchards (see
SAP Review Code D-1 in Table 3  below and Figure 25 in the Agency’s
background document).

10:45 A.M.	BREAK 

  

11:00 A.M.	

QUESTION 4: Please comment on the classification of crop-activity
combinations in Agency Exhibit C, identified with a cluster code of
“No TC”, as involving no or very low exposure.  Please identify any
crop-activity combinations classified as “No TC” in Exhibit C which
should be categorized differently because of their associated exposure
potential.  Likewise, please identify any combinations which should be
categorized as “No TC” which are currently included in other
clusters.  Please explain the basis for any such recommendations.

12:30 P.M.	LUNCH

1:30 P.M.	Charge to the Panel Topic B:  Workday Duration

The Agency discussed its methodology for assessing post-application
exposures with an emphasis on the workday duration input.  A central
tendency value of 8 hours per day is typically used by the Agency.  The
data also show, as seen in several sources, certain portions of the
population work longer over the course of a day (e.g., 10 or 12 hours). 
However, the Agency believes that, in most cases, employing a central
tendency estimate of 8 hours per day yields an appropriately protective
estimate of risk because of the combined impact of several other inputs
in the exposure and risk assessment process.  Specifically, the
following issues have been identified for the Panel to consider:

QUESTION 1: Please comment on the strengths and limitations of the data
sources used to quantify the duration of a workday for farmworkers, as
well as any additional sources of information that could be used for the
analysis of farmworker workday duration.  If any are identified, please
comment on the possible impacts they might have on the results of the
analysis conducted by the Agency.

3:00 P.M.  BREAK

3:15 P.M. 

QUESTION 2: Please comment on the Agency’s conclusion that using 8
hours per day for exposure assessment purposes and given the
conservativeness of the other inputs results in estimates of farmworker
exposures at the high end of the distribution of actual multi-day
exposures.  To the extent that the Panel believes that this is not the
case, please suggest alternative approaches.

4:30 P.M. 

QUESTION 3: Please comment on whether the Agency’s approach to
single-day exposure assessments results in farmworker exposure estimates
that fall in the high end of the distribution of actual single day
exposures.  To the extent the Panel thinks that is not the case, please
suggest alternative approaches that may generate such estimates.

5:30 P.M.	ADJOURN



AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

December 2-5, 2008

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone: (703) 305-5805

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0673

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Associated with Worker Reentry Exposure Assessment

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Friday, December 5, 2008

9:00 A.M.      Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures 

	Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy, EPA 

9:05 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members 

	Janice Chambers, Ph.D., DABT, ATS, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
Session Chair

9:10 A.M. 	Follow-up From Previous Day’s Discussion

Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:30 A.M.	Charge to the Panel Topic B:  Workday Duration 

Discussion of Question 3 cont’d

10:45 A.M.	BREAK

11:00 A.M.	Panel Discussion

12:00 P.M. 	ADJOURN

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion
for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin.
For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official
for this meeting, Sharlene Matten, via telephone: (202) 564-0130; fax:
(202) 564-8382; or email:   HYPERLINK "mailto:matten.sharlene@epa.gov" 
matten.sharlene@epa.gov .

Table 3:  Reference Table for Charge Question 2 (b)

ARTF Study	ARTF Proposal	Agency Proposal	SAP Review Code	Page No.

Category/ Study Code	Crop	Activity	Cluster Code	Description	Summary of
Agency Review of ARTF Proposal	Cluster Code

Hairy-leaf, Field Crop Clusters

ARF045	Cucumbers	Hand Harvesting	HH	Hairy-leaf field crops:  hand
harvesting and similar contact activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's
proposal	HH	A	54-59

ARF049	Summer Squash	Hand Harvesting

ARF024	Tobacco	Hand harvesting	HHt	Hairy-leaf (Tobacco):  hand
harvesting and canopy management	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal
HHt

ARF022	Sunflowers	Scouting	HS	Hairy-leaf field crops:  scouting and
similar contact activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	HS

Smooth-leaf, Field Crop Clusters

ARF051	Tomato	Tying	SH	Smooth-leaf field crops:  hand harvesting and
tying	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	SH	B	50-54

AR1001	Strawberry	Hand Harvesting

AR1023	Tomato	Hand Harvesting

AR1024	Strawberry	Hand Harvesting

AR1025	Cotton	Scouting	SSr	Smooth-leaf field crops:  scouting in row
conditions	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	SSr

AR1027	Tomato	Scouting

ARF009	Corn	Scouting	SSs	Smooth-leaf field crops:  scouting in solid
stand conditions	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	SSs

ARF021	Dry Pea	Scouting

AR1006	Cotton	Hand weeding	SW	Smooth-leaf field crops:  hand weeding,
thinning, and similar contact activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's
proposal	SW

AR1018	Cotton	Hand weeding

AR1019	Dry Pea	Hand weeding

ARF010	Sweet Corn	Hand harvesting	Sx	Smooth-leaf field crops:  intense
contact activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	Sx

Waxy-leaf, Field Crop Clusters

ARF050	Cabbage	Hand harvesting	WIH	Waxy-leaf field crops, low height: 
hand harvesting and similar contact activities	The Agency concurs with
ARTF's proposal	WIH	C	59-61

AR1008	Cauliflower	Scouting	WIS 	Waxy-leaf field crops, low height: 
scouting and similar contact activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's
proposal	WIS 

ARF011	Cauliflower	Scouting	Wm	Waxy-leaf field crops, medium height: 
all activities, plus full foliage weeding	The Agency concurs with ARTF's
proposal	Wm

ARF012	Cauliflower	Hand harvesting

ARF037	Cabbage	Hand weeding

Orchard Crop Clusters

ARF025	Apples	Hand Harvesting	OH	Orchard crops:  hand harvesting and
similar contact activities	The Agency generally concurs with ARTF's
proposal.  However, one potential alteration to the proposed crop
grouping could be an additional cluster for orchard crop thinning.  The
Agency believes this activity may be more contact-intensive and
therefore could be considered separately in exposure assessments.
Possibly create a separate cluster for orchard crop thinning	D-1	63-69

ARF028	Oranges 	Hand Harvesting

ARF041	Oranges 	Hand Harvesting

ARF042	Grapefruit	Hand Harvesting

AR1002	Peaches	Hand Harvesting

AR1003	Apples	Thinning

AR1014	Peaches	Hand Harvesting

AR1021	Peaches	Hand Harvesting

AR1016	Almonds	Mechanical Harvesting	OHn	Orchard crops:  mechanically
harvesting nuts	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	OHn	D-2

	ARF033	Olives	Hand Pruning	OP	Orchard crops:  hand pruning, scouting,
and similar contact activities	See Agency review comment for ARTF
Proposal for Cluster TP	See OP/TP	See E-3

	ARF047	Apples	Hand Pruning

AR1017	Peaches	Propping	OW	Orchard crops:  hand weeding and similar
contact activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	OW	D-4

	Trellis Crop Clusters

ARF020	Blackberries	Hand harvesting	THb	Trellis crops:  hand harvesting
caneberries and similar contact activities	The Agency concurs with
ARTF's proposal	THb	E-1	69-76

ARF048	Juice/Wine Grapes	Hand harvesting	THg	Trellis crops:  hand
harvesting grapes and similar contact activities	The Agency is
considering to further separate the THg cluster by having separate
transfer coefficients for hand harvesting wine grapes and table/raisin
grapes, respectively.  The Agency also proposes to utilize the revised
THtg cluster to represent girdling.	THwg	E-2

	AR1020	Table / Raisin Grapes	Hand harvesting

THtg

AR1022	Table / Raisin Grapes	Hand harvesting

ARF023	Table / Raisin Grapes	Scouting	TP	Trellis crops:  hand pruning,
scouting, and similar contact activities	The Agency is considering
combining similar activities conducted in trellises and orchards.  The
respective ARTF-proposed clusters OP and TP, representing activities
such as scouting and hand pruning, are very similar because shears or
other devices would be used which preclude some level of contact with
the treated plants.  Also, corresponding to Review Code E-2, girdling
would be removed from this cluster.	OP/TP	E-3

	AR1015	Table / Raisin Grapes	Cane turning	Tx	Trellis crops:  intense
contact activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	Tx	E-4

	Greenhouse and Nursery Crop Clusters

ARF055	Solidasters, Snapdragons, Lillies	Hand Harvesting	GHf	Greenhouse
and nursery floriculture hand harvesting:  all flowers and methods	The
Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	GHf	F-1	40-45

ARF020	Blackberries	Hand Harvesting	GHv	Greenhouse vegetables: hand
harvesting and similar contact activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's
proposal	GHv

ARF051	Tomatoes, fresh	Tying

ARF039	Chrysanthe-mums	Pinching	GN	Greenhouse and nursery crops:  all
activities	The Agency generally concurs with ARTF's proposal.  However,
the Agency believes that there could be support for additional
separation of hand harvesting nursery crops from other nursery crop
activities.	GN	F-2

	ARF043	Nursery Stock Citrus Trees	Hand Pruning

ARF044	Nursery Stock Citrus Trees	Hand Harvesting

All crops:  transplanting

GHn

Crop Irrigation Cluster

ARF036	Potatoes	Irrigation	I	Irrigation, any crop where hand line is
possible	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	I	G	78-80

Mechanical Harvesting Cotton Clusters

AR1004	Cotton	Mechanical Harvesting	CHp	Cotton, mechanical harvesting: 
picker operator and raker (based on boll residues)	The Agency concurs
with ARTF's proposal	CHp	H	61-63

	CHm	Cotton, mechanical harvesting:  module builder operator (based on
boll residues)	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	CHm

	CHt	Cotton, mechanical harvesting:  tramper (based on boll residues)
The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	CHt

Turf Clusters

ARF035	Sod	Mechanical Harvesting	DH	Sod:  mechanical harvesting,
scouting, transplanting, and hand weeding	The Agency concurs with ARTF's
proposal	DH	I	76-78

ARF057	Golf Course Turf	Maintenance	DM	Golf courses:  maintenance
activities	The Agency concurs with ARTF's proposal	DM

 PAGE   

 PAGE   2 

Draft AGENDA 11-14-08