Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0561-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-04-18T17:58:20Z

Meeting
Notes
Pesticide
Program
Dialogue
Committee
Work
Group
on
Pesticide
Worker
Safety
Regulatory
Enhancements
The
first
meeting
on
Pesticide
Worker
Safety
Regulatory
Enhancements
was
held
on
February
27,
2006
in
Arlington,
VA.
The
EPA
made
presentations
on
the
proposed
pesticide
worker
safety
program
regulation
changes
(
40CFR
170,
171),
with
brief
discussion
of
the
issues
that
will
be
addressed
through
the
proposed
rule
making.
Handouts
included
the
Report
on
the
National
Assessment
of
the
EPA's
Pesticide
Worker
Safety
Program,
the
Pesticide
Program
Dialogue
Committee
(
PPDC)
work
group
charter,
and
a
copy
of
the
EPA
presentation.
In
addition,
these
materials
were
e­
mailed
to
the
work
group.
The
meeting
agenda
and
the
PPDC
work
group
member
list
are
appended
to
these
notes.

Work
group
members
attending:
Chuck
Andrews
­
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation
Lori
Berger
­
California
Minor
Crops
Council
(
via
teleconference)
Amy
Brown
­
University
of
Maryland
State,
Extension
Service
Gina
Davis
­
Michigan
Department
of
Agriculture
(
via
teleconference)
Shelley
Davis
­
Farmworker
Justice
Fund
Hope
Driscol
­
Association
of
Farmworker
Opportunity
Programs
Tom
Hall
­
CropLife
America
Kerry
Hoffman­
Richards
­
Pennsylvania
State
University
Extension
Service
Al
Jennings
­
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
Melody
M.
Kawamoto
­
Center
for
Disease
Control
(
via
teleconference)
Amy
Liebman
­
Migrants
Clinicians
Network
Curt
Lunchick
­
Bayer
CropScience
Carol
Ramsay
­
Washington
State
University,
Extension
Service
Mary
Ellen
Setting
­
Maryland
Department
of
Agriculture
Greg
Watson
­
Syngenta
Other
attendees:
Wayne
Carlson
­
Bayer
CropScience
Kate
Scott
­
Farmworker
Justice
Fund
Teung
Chen
­
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
Aaron
Wallisch
­
DLA
Piper
Jake
McKenzie
­
City
of
Rohnert
Park
Environmental
Protection
Agency
attendees:
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
Bill
Diamond,
Kevin
Keaney,
Donald
Eckerman,
Kathy
Davis,
Michelle
Devaux,
Elizabeth
Owens,
Carolyn
Schroeder,
Michael
Walsh,
Jean
Frane,
Richard
Dumas
Office
of
Policy,
Economics,
and
Innovation
Kevin
DeBell
Agenda
Sections
­
Presentation
Notes
Pesticide
Worker
Safety
Regulations,
Program
Context,
Role
in
Risk
Assessment
and
Risk
Management,
Regulation
Making
Process,
and
the
Role
of
the
PPDC
Work
Group.

Bill
Diamond,
Director
of
the
Field
and
External
Affairs
Division,
gave
a
presentation
on
the
pesticide
worker
safety
program,
which
included
the
background
of
the
program,
the
existing
program
regulations,
and
the
program's
role
in
risk
assessment
and
in
risk
management.
He
outlined
the
rationale
for
regulatory
change,
the
issues
identified
through
the
national
assessment
of
the
pesticide
worker
safety
program,
the
activities
of
the
Certification
and
Training
Assessment
Group,
and
the
rule
making
administrative
process.
The
work
group
was
encouraged
to
comment
on
the
proposed
changes.
There
is
no
expectation
that
there
will
be
a
consensus
document
from
the
work
group.
The
group
will
be
asked
to
review
documents
at
critical
junctures.

Pesticide
Worker
Safety
Program
Assessments
and
Stakeholder
Involvement,
Potential
Enhancements
to
the
Certified
Applicator
Regulation
(
40CFR
171),
the
Agricultural
Worker
Protection
Regulation
(
40CFR
170),
and
Label
Regulation
Amendments.

Kevin
Keaney,
Chief
of
the
Certification
and
Worker
Protection
Branch,
gave
a
presentation
on
the
proposed
areas
of
change
to
the
regulation
for
the
certification
of
pesticide
applicators,
the
agricultural
worker
protection
regulation,
and
the
regulations
for
labels.
He
emphasized
the
results
of
the
pesticide
worker
safety
program
assessments,
the
activity
of
the
Certification
and
Training
Assessment
Group,
and
findings
from
other
venues
of
stakeholder
involvement.

The
potential
regulation
enhancements
and
change
areas
were
outlined,
followed
by
work
group
questions
and
discussion.

Areas
Proposed
for
Change
to
the
Certified
Applicator
Regulation
to
Enhance
Protection
or
to
Enhance
Efficiency
Protective:
Appropriate
Coverage
&
Raise
Competency
C
Expand
scope
of
users
required
to
demonstrate
competency
C
Eliminate
"
under­
the­
supervision"

C
Require
restricted
use
pesticide
dealers
to
prove
competency
C
Require
trainers
to
prove
competency
C
Set
minimum
age
for
occupational
users
C
Require
testing
for
all
occupational
users
C
Set
standard
requirements
for
testing
C
Competency
requirements
consistent
with
risk
C
Evaluate
ongoing
competency
C
Ensure
continued
evidence
of
competency
Efficiency
C
Develop
standard
certification
categories
C
Equalize
standards
for
states/
tribes/
territories
C
Assure
program
accountability
Discussion
of
Certified
Applicator
Regulation
Potential
Change
Areas:

­
Competency
gauge
for
private
applicators.
Clarification
was
requested
regarding
the
testing
of
private
applicators
to
demonstrate
competency.
Would
this
apply
to
re­
certification
as
well?

­
Under
the
direct
supervision.
There
was
discussion
about
"
under
the
direct
supervision."
States
have
a
variety
of
definitions
for
"
under
the
direct
supervision,"
including
multiple
definitions
within
a
state.
If
the
scope
of
the
users
required
to
demonstrate
competency
is
expanded
to
include
a
wider
range
of
occupational
users,
then
issues
related
to
"
under
the
direct
supervision"
could
be
resolved.
There
was
discussion
regarding
better
specifying
or
clarifying
of
"
under
the
direct
supervision"
language
on
labels.

­
A
competency
gauge
for
agricultural
pesticide
handlers.
The
handlers
could
be
required
to
demonstrate
competency
if
the
regulation's
scope
is
expanded.
The
language
and
the
education
of
handlers
need
to
be
considered.

­
Require
restricted
use
pesticide
dealers
to
demonstrate
competency.
There
were
some
questions
raised
regarding
the
certification
of
dealers.
There
is
wide
variation
among
states
on
what
it
means
to
be
a
certified
dealer.
Currently,
in
most
states,
the
dealer
manager
is
certified,
but
the
sales
associate
may
not
be
certified.
Work
group
members
pointed
out
that
decisions
will
need
to
be
made
about
who
must
demonstrate
competency.

­
Require
trainers
to
prove
competency.
There
was
discussion
as
to
who
should
or
could
be
a
trainer.
Members
pointed
out
that
many
people
may
be
involved
in
training,
including
those
who
give
presentations
or
lectures.
Who
among
these
will
be
required
to
prove
competency?

­
Competency
requirements
consistent
with
risk.
Tiering
of
competency
requirements
based
on
application
method
or
pesticide
product
toxicity
was
discussed.
California's
tiering
by
application
method
was
noted.
Canada's
tiering
systems
were
mentioned.
There
was
a
discussion
about
what
constitutes
high
risk
methods
and
products,
and
how
the
risk
will
be
tiered.
Also,
the
role
of
the
employer
in
the
protection
of
the
worker
was
discussed.
The
use
of
regulation
to
drive
improvements
in
engineering
controls
was
discussed.

­
Category
specific
exams.
There
is
a
lot
of
variation
among
states
regarding
which
tests
are
needed
for
different
categories.
The
EPA
discussed
the
development
of
a
national
aerial
exam
as
an
example
of
a
category
specific
exam
and
a
validated
exam.
There
needs
to
be
more
discussion
to
determine
the
appropriate,
job
specific
subject
matter
on
tests.
­
Closed
book
exams.
It
was
suggested
that
resource
material
should
be
included
when
considering
closed
book
exams.
Finding
information
in
reference
material
demonstrates
a
level
of
competency.
The
definition
of
what
constitutes
"
closed
book
exam"
needs
to
be
clearly
refined.

­
Existence
of
other
developing
work.
Meeting
participants
encouraged
the
EPA
to
take
into
consideration
other
regulations
and
other
program
enhancements
as
the
regulation
proposal
develops.
Changes
to
the
program
need
to
consider
the
impact
of
other
existing
or
proposed
programs,
such
as
the
global
harmonization
system.

­
E­
media.
A
committee
member
recommended
the
use
of
e­
media
as
a
vehicle
for
information
in
the
regulations.
For
example,
making
labels
available
on­
line
would
be
a
useful
tool.

­
Home
owners.
Concern
was
expressed
that
homeowners
have
access
to
pesticides
and
can
use
the
product
without
training.
There
was
some
discussion
about
whether
this
should
be
a
work
group
concern.
The
proposed
changes
intend
to
link
increased
risk
to
the
need
for
increased
skills.
In
Canada,
the
distinction
between
home
use
and
occupational
use
is
based
on
whether
the
product
is
ready
to
use
versus
needing
to
be
mixed
and
measured.
It
was
noted
that
the
current
regulations
address
occupational
uses
and
risks,
but
not
consumer
uses.
It
was
mentioned
that
the
risk
for
homeowners
differs
from
an
occupational
user,
who,
over
time
has
greater
risk
for
both
acute
and
chronic
pesticide
health
issues.

­
Budget
concerns.
Concerns
regarding
an
increased
economic
burden
were
expressed.
Some
discussion
focused
on
the
cost
of
developing
validated
exams.
For
all
of
the
proposed
changes,
the
EPA
will
conduct
analyses
to
assess
economic
impacts.

­
Impact
of
changes
on
other
areas
of
the
regulation.
Attention
was
drawn
to
the
fact
that
the
proposed
changed
are
interconnected.
Decisions
made
in
the
development
of
one
proposed
change
may
affect
another
change.
The
overlap
and
relatedness
of
the
changes
need
to
be
considered
as
the
changes
developed.

­
Definitions.
Definitions,
such
as
"
an
occupational
user"
and
"
under
the
direct
supervision,"
need
further
refinement.
As
the
regulations
are
developed,
terms
will
need
to
be
more
clearly
defined.

Areas
Proposed
for
Change
to
the
Agricultural
Worker
Protection
Regulation
to
Enhance
Protection
or
to
Enhance
Efficiency
Protective:
Inform
Workers
C
Ensure
meaningful
hazard
communications
C
Ensure
meaningful
training
C
Require
trainers
to
demonstrate
competency
C
Establish
training
verification
system
C
Protect
children
from
pesticide­
treated
fields
Efficiency
C
Clarify
vague
WPS
provisions
C
Clarify
exceptions
C
Exempt
certified
crop
advisors
&
aerial
applicators
C
Require
handlers
to
demonstrate
competency
C
Express
regulation
in
plain
English
C
Assure
program
accountability
Discussion
of
Agricultural
Worker
Protection
Regulation
Potential
Change
Areas
­
Ensure
meaningful
training.
There
are
significant
resource
implications
associated
with
the
proposed
regulatory
changes.
Train
the
trainer
infrastructure
will
need
to
be
enhanced
or
developed.
Currently,
certified
applicators
can
train
handlers
and
workers
in
WPS
safety
training.
There
need
to
be
a
decision
on
who
will
be
a
recognized
trainer.

­
Establish
training
verification
system.
There
were
questions
regarding
how
this
would
be
accomplished.

­
Protection
of
children.
How
to
protect
children,
who
enter
pesticide­
treated
fields,
was
discussed.
A
suggestion
was
made
that
risks
to
children
emphasized
in
the
required
safety
training.
It
was
recommended
to
take
into
consideration
the
age
of
children
when
considering
restrictions.
For
example,
teenagers
are
a
very
different
target
audience
than
adults,
and
must
be
considered
different
from
younger
children.
There
was
discussion
about
children
in
the
fields
who
are
not
employed.
A
work
group
member
referred
to
the
National
Academy
of
Science
2000
/
2001
report
on
youth
workers
regarding
the
suggestions
for
enhanced
training.

­
Require
handlers
to
demonstrate
competency.
Support
was
voiced
to
add
handlers
to
the
occupational
group
requiring
demonstration
of
competency.

­
Risk
reduction
for
handlers.
Risk
reduction
for
handlers
could
include
closed
mixing
and
loading
systems
 
now
required
in
California.

­
Cholinesterase
monitoring.
It
was
recommended
to
require
monitoring
for
all
handlers.
It
is
being
used
in
California
and
Washington
for
applicators.
It
was
recommended
that
monitoring
data
be
used
to
show
the
effectiveness
of
protections.

­
Exceptions.
It
was
recommended
that
the
EPA
remove
the
re­
entry
irrigation
and
low
contact
exceptions
for
workers.

­
Training
grace
period.
Support
was
shown
for
a
shorter
training
grace
period.

­
Showering
facilities.
A
recommendation
was
made
to
consider
requiring
showers
for
handlers
in
order
to
address
the
risk
of
take­
home
exposure
and
of
long­
term
exposures
from
pesticides.

­
Mandatory
reporting.
There
was
some
discussion
regarding
an
incident
surveillance
system
and
a
reporting
requirement
for
employers.

­
Personal
protection
equipment
(
PPE).
There
was
some
discussion
of
PPE
requirements,
specifically
related
to
respirators
and
fit
testing.
There
was
a
question
of
whether
or
not
half­
face
respirators
are
viable
exposure
protection
devices.

­
Other
regulations.
It
was
recommended
that
aspects
of
OSHA
protections
should
be
examined
for
applicability
to
farm
workers.
Work
group
members
gave
multiple
examples
throughout
the
meeting
of
state
approaches
to
many
issues.

­
Hazard
communication
and
worker
training.
Members
from
the
work
group
gave
ideas
for
hazard
communication
posting
(
e.
g.,
when
a
crop
is
treated,
post
a
REI
expiration
date
and
contact
information
for
grower
/
employee).
It
was
suggested
that
workers
be
trained
on
pesticide
specific
health
effects
and
worker
rights.

Areas
Proposed
for
Change
to
the
Label
Regulations
and
Labels
Labels
C
Amend
labeling
rules
to
make
applicator
certification
changes
enforceable
C
Amend
labeling
rules
to
make
agricultural
worker
protection
changes
enforceable
C
Revise
labels
to
conform
to
rule
changes
Other
Topics
o
Proposed
Regulation
Change
Schedule
August
2007
is
the
projected
date
to
publish
the
proposed
rule
for
public
comment.
A
first
draft
of
the
proposals
is
scheduled
for
summer
2006.
o
Action
Items
Work
group
members
should
list
the
most
important
issues
and
comments
presented
at
this
meeting.
Member's
response
to
the
meeting's
presentations
should
be
sent
to
Donald
Eckerman
at
eckerman.
donald@
epa.
gov
or
to
Kevin
Keaney
at
keaney.
kevin@
epa.
gov
by
March
15,
2006.
o
Closing
There
were
no
comments
or
questions
from
the
public.

Appendices
Appendix
1:
PPDC
Subgroup
Meeting
Agenda
Pesticide
Program
Dialogue
Committee
Subgroup
on
Pesticide
Worker
Safety
Regulatory
Enhancements
Crystal
Mall
2,
Room
1126
February
27,
2006
9:
00A
Bill
Diamond,
Director,
Field
&
External
Affairs
Division
Introductions
­
Role
­
Logistics
­
Agenda
Pesticide
Worker
Safety
Regulations
­
Program
Context
­
Role
in
Risk
Assessment
and
Risk
Management
Regulation
Making
Process
Questions
9:
45A
Kevin
Keaney,
Chief,
Certification
&
Worker
Protection
Branch
Pesticide
Worker
Safety
Program
Assessments
­
Stakeholder
Involvement
10:
30A
Break
10:
45A
Potential
Enhancements
Certified
Applicator
Regulation
Changes
(
40
CFR
171)
Protective
Requirements
Operational
Efficiencies
Questions
/
Discussion
12:
30P
Lunch
1:
30P
Potential
Enhancements
Agricultural
Worker
Protection
Regulation
Changes
(
40
CFR
170)
Protective
Requirements
Operational
Efficiencies
Questions
/
Discussion
3:
00P
Break
3:
15P
Potential
Enhancements
Label
Regulation
Amendments
Questions
/
Discussion
3:
45P
Schedule
­
Next
Steps
4:
30P
Public
Comment
/
Questions
5:
00P
Closing
Remarks
Appendix
2:
PPDC
Subgroup
Members
Pesticide
Program
Dialogue
Committee
Subgroup
Members
Rebeckah
Freeman
Adcock,
Director
Congressional
Relations
American
Farm
Bureau
Federation
Jose
Amador,
Director
Agricultural
Research
&
Extension
Center
Texas
A
&
M
University
Chuck
Andrews,
Chief
Worker
Health
&
Safety
Branch
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Lori
A.
Berger,
Director
Technical
Affairs
California
Minor
Crops
Council
Amy
E.
Brown,
Coordinator
Pesticide
Safety
Education
Program
Entomology
Department
University
of
Maryland
Gina
Davis,
Deputy
Director
Pesticide
and
Plant
Pest
Management
Division
Michigan
Department
of
Agriculture
Shelley
Davis,
Deputy
Director
Farmworker
Justice
Fund
Hope
Driscoll,
Program
Manager
SAFE
Americorps
Program
Association
of
Farmworker
Opportunity
Programs
Tom
Hall,
Stewardship
Director
CropLife
America
Kerry
Hoffman­
Richards,
Manager
Pest
Management
Information
Center
Pesticide
Education
Program
Pennsylvania
State
University
Allen
Jennings,
Director
Office
of
Pest
Management
Policy
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
Melody
M.
Kawamoto,
Medical
Officer
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
National
Institute
for
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Amy
K.
Liebman,
Program
Manager
Environmental
and
Occupational
Health
Migrant
Clinicians
Network
Curt
Lunchick,
Head
Nondietary
Exposure
and
Risk
Assessment
Bayer
CropScience
Erik
Nicholson,
Director
Pacific
Northwest
Region
United
Farm
Workers
of
America,
AFL­
CIO
Carol
Ramsay,
Pesticide
Education
Specialist
Extension
IPM
&
Pesticide
Education
Program
Washington
State
University
Robert
M.
Rosenberg,
Vice
President
Government
Affairs
National
Pest
Management
Association,
Inc.

Mary
Ellen
Setting,
Assistant
Secretary
Office
of
Plant
Industries
&
Pest
Management
Maryland
Department
of
Agriculture
Greg
Watson,
Herbicides
Team
Leader
Syngenta