Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0561-0004
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-04-18T19:53:28Z

PESTICIDE
WORKER
SAFETY
PROGRAM
PROPOSED
AREAS
OF
CHANGE
Worker
Protection
Committee
Comments
4/
11/
06
Applicator
Certification
(
40
CFR
171)

1.
Expand
users
required
to
demonstrate
competency
Problem
Statement:
Current
regulation
applies
only
to
narrow
set
of
applicators
who
use
restricted
use
products
(
RUPs).
Workers
in
industries
not
currently
covered
are
at
risk
for
pesticide
exposure
incidents.

Need
to
evaluate
the
scope
of
applicators
and
potential
risks
to
each
group
(
e.
g.,
employees
handling
antimicrobial
products
in
restaurants
versus
insecticides
in
schools
or
agriculture)

Under
options­
add
training
requirement
in
lieu
of
certification.
This
may
be
a
better
option
than
requiring
certification
due
to
the
cost
and
resources
needed
to
implement
such
a
recommendation.
Evaluate
training
before
making
a
change
to
the
next
level
(
certification)
may
be
appropriate.
Another
option
to
consider
is
to
expand
certification
to
growers
and
commercial
applicator
employees
handling
GUP,
and
establish
training
requirements
for
all
other
GUP
users
(
employees).

High
priority
for
further
discussion
2.
Eliminate
"
under
the
supervision"
Problem
Statement:
Applicators
who
have
not
demonstrated
competency
may
apply
pesticides
while
under
the
supervision;
there
is
no
standard
definition
of
supervision.

Prefer
to
better
define
"
supervision"
and
situations
under
which
this
would
be
allowed
rather
than
eliminate
this
provision.
Consider
limiting
the
number
of
handlers
per
certified
applicator.

Can
handle
higher
risk
situations
under
a
tiered
scenario/
clearer
supervision
def.

The
option
of
certifying
these
applicators
may
give
them
more
responsibility
than
warranted.
These
applicators
can
follow
instructions
but
may
have
difficulty
passing
an
exam.

High
priority
for
further
discussion
3.
Require
RUP
dealers
to
prove
competency
Problem
Statement:
Dealers
are
responsible
for
large
quantities
of
pesticides
and
often
provide
advice
on
product
selection,
but
are
not
required
to
demonstrate
competency.

Certification
for
each
employee
would
be
excessive.
Recommend
establishing
a
requirement
for
one
certified
person
for
each
dealership.

Need
to
define
what
is
required
for
an
off­
site
inventory
list.
Keep
the
option
broad
by
establishing
minimum
security
standards

Consider
establishing
a
National
standard
for
(
1)
storage
facilities,
(
2)
security
against
theft
and
fraud,
(
3)
requiring
dealers
to
obtain
from
purchaser
proof
of
ID,
proof
of
certification,
and
authority
to
purchase

Medium
priority
for
further
discussion
4.
Require
trainers
to
prove
competency
Problem
Statement:
Trainers
influence
behavior
and
are
a
primary
source
of
information,
but
are
not
required
to
demonstrate
competency
as
educators.

The
scope
of
this
change
is
significant.

Suggest
adding
an
option
to
establish
training/
teaching
tools
criteria
into
the
training
program.

High
priority
for
further
discussion
5.
Set
minimum
age
for
occupational
users
Problem
Statement:
There
is
no
established
minimum
age
for
occupational
pesticide
users.

Agree
with
recommendation,
although
should
consider
exceptions
on
a
case­
bycase
basis

Low
priority
for
further
discussion.

6.
Require
testing
for
all
occupational
users
Problem
Statement:
Currently
there
is
no
standard
requiring
all
occupational
users
to
demonstrate
competency
through
testing.
The
absence
of
a
minimum
testing
standard
allows
users
with
inadequate
knowledge
of
pesticide
safety
to
apply
pesticides,
which
presents
a
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.

Same
as
#
1?

Need
to
evaluate
the
scope
of
applicators
and
potential
risks
to
each
group
(
e.
g.,
employees
handling
antimicrobial
products
in
restaurants
versus
insecticides
in
schools
or
agriculture)

Under
options­
add
training
requirement
in
lieu
of
certification.
This
may
be
a
better
option
than
requiring
certification
due
to
the
cost
and
resources
needed
to
implement
such
a
recommendation.
Evaluate
training
before
making
a
change
to
the
next
level
(
certification)
may
be
appropriate.

High
priority
for
further
discussion
7.
Set
standard
requirements
for
testing
Problem
Statement:
Not
all
states
administer
exams
which
measure
a
standard
level
of
competency.

Support
concept
for
standardized
exam
development
provided
states
have
an
option
to
expand
based
on
state
requirements

Agree
with
exam
security
criteria

Further
discussion
needed
on
exam
administration.
SLA
should
be
given
options
provided
minimum
criteria
are
met.

8.
Competency
requirements
consistent
with
risk
Problem
Statement:
High
risk
applications
currently
do
not
require
demonstration
of
competency
commensurate
with
the
level
of
risk.

Support
concept.

EPA
should
address
higher
risk
designation
through
labeling.
Certification
program
can
be
designed
to
address
labeling
requirements
based
on
risks.

Low
priority
for
further
discussion
9.
Evaluate
ongoing
competency
Problem
Statement:
The
current
regulations
have
very
vague
provisions
for
ensuring
the
continued
competency
of
applicators.

Recommend
adding
an
option
to
include
specific
criteria
for
a
competency
standard
(
re­
certification
through
continued
education
training).

Medium
priority
for
further
discussion
10.
Ensure
continued
evidence
of
competency
Problem
Statement:
Existing
requirements
do
not
ensure
that
applicator
knowledge
keeps
pace
with
the
constantly
evolving
field
of
pesticide
application.

Unclear
whether
it
is
necessary
to
establish
federal
standards
to
ensure
applicators
keep
pace
with
current
technology.

Recommend
adding
an
option
to
require
SLA
to
include
this
information
in
the
grant
work
plans.

Medium
priority
for
further
discussion
11.
Develop
standard
certification
categories
Problem
Statement:
Wide
variation
among
state
certification
categories
adds
to
burden
and
inhibits
reciprocity.

Support
the
concept
to
establish
core
categories,
but
allow
flexibility
to
establish
State
categories.

Medium
priority
for
further
discussion.

12.
Equalize
standards
for
states/
tribes/
territories
Problem
Statement:
Varying
state,
tribal
and
federal
plan
requirements
impose
conflicting
demands
on
EPA
and
are
inconsistent

No
comment

Low
priority
for
further
discussion
13.
Assure
program
accountability
Problem
Statement:
Lack
of
consistent
requirements
for
program
reporting
inhibits
ability
to
manage
program,
establish
priorities
and
meet
new
program
accountability
obligations.

Additional
reporting
requirements
may
impact
state
resources.
Impacts
unknown
until
discussion
takes
place

Address
in
grant
work
plans.

Medium
priority
for
further
discussion.
Worker
Protection
(
40
CFR
170)

1.
Ensure
meaningful
hazard
communications
Problem
Statement:
Current
regulation
hazard
notification
efforts
do
not
provide
workers
with
adequate
protection.

OSHA's
hazard
communication
requirements
are
designed
for
fixed
facilities.

Need
to
consider
multiple
field
locations
when
designing
the
program.

What
data
does
EPA
have
to
support
that
workers
are
requesting
specific
risk
information?
Need
to
obtain
feedback
from
farm
workers
on
the
type
of
information
requested
and
the
type
of
delivery
system
that
best
meets
the
worker's
needs.
This
type
of
information
should
be
collected
during
the
pilot
projects.

High
priority
for
further
discussion
2.
Ensure
meaningful
training
Problem
Statement:
Retraining
is
only
required
every
5
years
which
is
too
infrequent
to
ensure
workers
know
how
to
protect
themselves.
Some
workers
may
never
receive
safety
training
because
the
rule
allows
employers
to
delay
full
training
for
5
days.

Support
shortening
of
the
retraining
period.

Low
priority
for
further
discussion.

3.
Require
trainers
to
demonstrate
competency
Problem
Statement:
Trainers
influence
behavior
and
are
a
primary
source
of
information,
but
are
not
required
to
demonstrate
competency
as
educators.

The
statement
"
An
applicator
must
pass
a
competency
gauge,
but
a
worker
has
no
such
gauge;
therefore,
the
trainer
must
be
competent
to
train
in
order
to
assure
the
worker
receives
effective
safety
training"
is
not
only
true
for
certified
applicators.

Suggest
adding
an
option
to
establish
training/
teaching
tools
criteria
into
the
training
program.

Need
to
evaluate
comparable
program
requirements
for
other
industries
and
determine
if
pesticides
require
a
higher
standard.

High
priority
for
further
discussion.
4.
Establish
training
verification
system
Problem
Statement:
Agricultural
worker
training
is
not
adequately
verified
and
tracked.

In
general
agreement
with
concept

Records
do
not
measure
the
effectiveness
of
training

Medium
priority
for
further
discussion.
5.
Protect
children
from
pesticide­
treated
fields
Problem
Statement:
There
is
no
requirement
to
keep
children
who
are
not
employed
out
of
pesticide­
treated
areas.

Support
concept

Federal
legislation
has
been
proposed
(
HR
3482)
to
require
cross­
reference
of
WPS
in
labor
regulations.
Should
consider
coordinating
with
OSHA
to
place
the
restrictions
in
labor
regulations

Medium
priority
for
further
discussion
6.
Clarify
vague
WPS
provisions
Problem
Statement:
Regulatory
language
is
complex
and
coverage
requirements
need
clarification.

Support
concept

Medium
priority
for
further
discussion.

7.
Clarify
exceptions
Problem
Statement:
Two
exceptions,
irrigation
and
early­
entry
low
contact,
are
not
included
in
the
regulation.

Support
concept

Low
priority
for
further
discussion.

8.
Exempt
certified
crop
advisors
and
aerial
applicators
Problem
Statement:
Crop
advisors
and
aerial
applicators
have
training
and
PPE
requirements
in
the
regulation,
although
their
risk
profile
is
more
aligned
with
that
of
certified
applicators.

Support
concept

Low
priority
for
further
discussion
9.
Require
handlers
to
demonstrate
competency
Problem
Statement:
handlers,
those
who
can
mix,
load
and
apply
pesticides
under
the
worker
protection
regulation,
are
not
required
to
demonstrate
competency.

Need
to
evaluate
the
scope
of
applicator
activities
(
e.
g.,
employees
handling
Category
III
pesticides
versus
Category
I
pesticides)

Many
handlers
could
not
pass
written
exam
but
are
capable
of
following
instructions.

High
priority
for
further
discussion
10.
Express
regulation
in
plain
English
Problem
Statement:
Regulatory
language
is
complex
and
should
be
expressed
in
plain
English.

Support
concept

Low
priority
for
further
discussion
11.
Assure
program
accountability
Problem
Statement:
Lack
of
consistent
requirements
for
program
reporting
inhibits
ability
to
manage
program,
establish
priorities
and
meet
new
program
accountability
obligations.

Should
be
addressed
in
grant
process
and
work
plans
with
States.

Medium
priority
for
further
discussion
General
Comments
The
biggest
area
that
EPA
has
missed
is
allowing
adequate
time
for
stakeholder
input.
SLAs
have
specific
concerns
regarding
CES
input
and
trying
to
address
both
certification
and
training
and
the
WPS
regulations
as
one
package.
Also,
there
has
been
little
opportunity
for
agricultural
employers
to
provide
input
on
what
might
and
might
not
work.
A
one­
year
time
is
not
adequate
for
input.

EPA
should
consider
adopting
closed
system
criteria/
definition
to
address
closed
system
label
requirements.

EPA
should
consider
evaluating
retaliation
and
providing
States
with
more
guidance
on
how
to
enforce
these
provisions.

EPA
should
consider
including
large­
scale
research
plots
under
the
scope
of
the
WPS.

Prepared
by
Chuck
Andrews,
Chair
AAPCO
Worker
Protection
Committee
Note:
The
comments
do
not
represent
a
consensus
from
the
AAPCO
Worker
Protection
Committee,
but
individual
comments
from
four
members.