Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184-0082
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2014-02-20T05:00Z

July 14, 2008

Joe Hogue

US EPA/OPPTS (7506-P)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Hogue;

As a member of the Small Entity Representative regarding the impact of
potential new requirements to the Agency regarding Ag Worker Protection
Standards, I will respond to both the PowerPoint presentation and the
written questions that were presented to us.  I have the following
thoughts:

From PowerPoint Slides:

I understand the need for additional training for fumigation,
chemigation and aerial application, but don’t quite understand the
need for compound 1080 and M-44.  Those baits do not pose a risk for
human risk for application, whereas the other compounds have a acute
toxicity level that should require additional training.

Regarding minimum age, I would have to disagree with many of the Small
Entity Representatives (SER’s) that were on the conference call that
did not believe that a minimum age should be established.  I could
forsee a large PR nightmare if a worker were to get sick and it be
determined that a 14 year old was responsible for the sickness.  Rather,
I believe a minimum age of between 16-18 should be established for
commercial applicators.  I would also agree with the prescribed method
for testing, as outlined.

However, regarding private applicators, I believe a minimum age of 16 is
appropriate.  Regarding, ensuring competency of non-certified
applicators applying Restricted Use Pesticides (RUP) under the
supervision of a certified applicator, I agree with all the proposed
standards, but would want to see some leniency regarding possession of
the label.  We are allowed to have the label within a reasonable
distance of the application site, but not to be carried on the
applicator’s person.

Regarding improving protections to workers from Restricted Entry
Intervals (REI), oral and written notification in my mind is not
feasible.  You cannot foretell who will be entering a given treated
field, nor can you guard the field.  Rather, posting for only Restricted
Use Pesticides, or other materials that may have a high dermal exposure
makes sense.  In our table grapes, we can spray up 3 times per month for
approximately a 4 month period, and during our gibrellic acid spray
period, we are literally spraying every 4 days for about three weeks. 
Such oral and written notifications would take up to 1 hour per each
spray performed to notify every possible person that COULD enter that
field before the end of the REI.  As a small business employer, I do not
have the time to inform in such a manner  Rather, place the requirement
where it belongs, on Restricted Use Pesticides instead, and place a
reasonable posting requirement on that field….at the very least on
each possible entry point and on each corner…..no more than that.  

Also requiring a shower and changing area seems unreasonable.  I do not
have a shower facility on my properties, but rather a metal shed, hoses
and electricity.  Placing a requirement for a shower would be an undue
requirement for me and could cost me in the tens of $1,000 for each
ranch site that I have, especially those that do not have water or
electricity nearby.  Rather, the use of PPE for handlers, mixer loaders
would make more sense.  We give our handlers a Tyvek suit when they mix
and load.

Cholinesterase testing restrictions were not very clear.  Therefore, it
was somewhat difficult to address.  Regarding eliminating closed
cabs…..this to me appears to be the best protection against drift.  If
the issue is the filtration system, encourage the manufacturers to
develop new, better filters that provide some protection, or require
some filter overwrap that provides the needed protection, but please do
not eliminate closed cabs.  It is the cheapest, quickest way to protect
those who apply materials.

From Written questions:

Applying RUP’s under supervision: yes, a supervisor should be somewhat
close, but I am more concerned with the ability to communicate when
there is a problem.  Requiring some form of communication, I believe, is
more cost effective for small business, as most if not all would have
two-ways or cell phones.  I do not think that would be an additional
burden or cost.

The current 5 day grace period and its elimination is not really a cost
issue, but more of timeliness issue.  For me, the grace period allows me
flexibility if I am busy on the first couple of days to provide me more
time to complete the training.  Again, a small business person is
handling multiple tasks.  Training every five years makes sense, but if
there is concern with this, then require a written document showing that
training has taken place rather than increasing the frequency. 
Specific, documented training should be for Restricted Use Pesticides,
not on all product use.  I am more concerned with appropriate training
where the need dictates rather than just training for training sake.

I’ve already addressed posting, but to respond to the written
question, posting could be quite difficult and time consuming.  In a
given year, I could spray my table grape vineyard up to 15 times
(herbicide, foliar sprays, pesticides, fungicides, fertilizers).  As I
mentioned above, I could do 5-6 sprays within a three week period. 
Posting would take up a very large chunk of my time.  I would rather
post for RUP’s.  The only time I expect early reentry is for
irrigation, which would be opening valves at the end of the row, for
about 1 hour per day over a 2 day irrigation period.  Minimal contact
with foliage occurs during this time.

A No-Entry zone around the field would have a disastrous impact upon us.
 We have shared avenues with other producers, who are growing different
crops, with different spray schedules…..this is impossible to accept.

Regarding MSDS’s, unless you subscribe to a service, it is very
difficult to obtain them.  I have asked for them from my pesticide
dealer, and they don’t always have them, and trying to get them from
the manufacturer is very difficult for a small business.  They just
don’t have the manpower to get us what we need and we don’t have the
clout (because of our low volume purchasing) to get their attention.  

I hope my comments have been helpful.  Please let me know if I can
answer and questions.

Sincerely,

Richard Matoian