1

Pesticide Worker Safety Program: Enhancements in Protections

Pesticide Program Dialogue CommitteeWorker Safety Subcommittee Working Session

June 14, 2006

2

PPDC Subcommittee Working Session Overview

Summary from Feb 27 meeting and update of issues• The Need for Regulatory Change• Role of PPDC subcommittee• Workgroup charge/ request for feedback• Review of current issues

Comments and determination of level of discussion• Applicator certification issues• Worker protection issues• New issues

Process and schedule

3

Enhancements in Protections – Why?

The agricultural worker protection rule (40 CFR Part 170) and the regulation for the certification of pesticide applicators (40 CFR Part 171) have both been in effect for many years. Old regulations Our understanding of pesticide risks has changed Circumstances of pesticide use have changed

The regulations are in need of updating and modification to achieve their public health and environmental protection goals, meet evolving demands and improved understanding of risks, and satisfy statutory mandates

Implementation experience and significant stakeholder input has identified regulatory deficiencies that should be addressed.

4

Role of PPDC Subcommittee

Consultation (Advice as input to deliberations)• Primary identification of issues• Supply supporting documents and/or information• Review documents and drafts at critical junctures

Coordination• Provide information about process and content to those

you represent• Solicit their input• Encourage their comments

Areas for ChangeApplicator Certification Regulation (40 CFR 171)

Protective: Appropriate Coverage & Raise Competency

Expand users required to demonstrate competence Better define “under-the-supervision” ** Require RUP dealers to prove competency Require applicators training workers to be competent ** Set minimum age for occupational users Require testing for occupational users ** Set standard requirements for testing Competency requirements consistent with risk Define requirements for recertification of applicators Establish process to update content of recertification programs

Efficiency

Update plan requirements for states/tribes/territories ** Develop standard certification categories Assure program accountability

6

Protective: Inform Workers Ensure meaningful hazard

communications Ensure meaningful training – content,

grace period, training interval ** Require trainers to demonstrate

competence Establish training reporting as verification ** Protect children from pesticide-treated fields

Efficiency Clarify vague WPS provisions Clarify exceptions Exempt certified crop advisors & aerial applicators Require handlers to demonstrate competency Express regulation in plain language Assure program accountability

Areas for ChangeAg Worker Protection Regulation (40 CFR 170)

7

Request for Feedback from February Meeting

Questions / Discussion

Are there any clarifying questions?

Did we miss anything? Other potential issues?

Are there reactions to specific proposals?

Do you have documentation to support proposals?

Ranking of issues for further discussion

8

Comments Received

Comments American Assoc. of Pesticide Safety Educators Individual pesticide State Lead Agencies Farm worker representative Grower representative Registrant representative EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection FACA

committee

Criteria used to identify level of need for discussion Broad concern: needs subcommittee conference call

discussion Mixed views: hold side discussions with members Support: comment during public comment period

9

Points to consider

Determine which issues warrant conference call discussion• Limited time to conduct conference calls, suggest five 2-

hour calls before early fall• New issues may warrant conference calls as well• Do you have any information or supporting documents to

add to an issue?• Requires commitment to reviewing issue papers and

submitting comments in writing

Did we miss anything? Do any other issues need conference calls beyond those

already identified?

10

Summary of comments and level of discussion needed on Applicator Certification regulation change

Level of need for discussion

Issue Nature of Comments

Broad concern: hold conference calls

-Expand scope of users -Expressed concern about concept & need for different options

Mixed views: hold side discussions

-Require RUP dealers to prove competency-Require competency gauge of all occupational users (options for private)-Define requirements for recertification of applicators-Establish process to update content of recertification programs-Assure program accountability

-Need more options

-High impact on resources

-Need flexibility

-Need other options, unclear if necessary to do-Resolve through grant negotiations

General support: comment during public comment period

-Establish consistent cert. categories-Set standard requirements for testing-Better define “under-the-supervision”-Establish minimum age-Establish competency requirements consistent with level of risk-Update plan requirements

-Support but need flexibility-Support but high impact-Need to define-Support but vary on how-Support but vary on how

-Support

11

Summary of comments and level of discussion needed on WPS regulation change

Level of need for discussion

Issue Nature of comments

Broad concern: hold conference calls

-Ensure meaningful hazard communications-Require handlers to demonstrate competency

-High impact

-Need evaluation

Mixed views: hold side discussions

-Require trainers to demonstrate competency-Establish training verification system-Assure program accountability

-Need other options

-High impact-Use grant process instead

General support: comment during public comment period

-Ensure meaningful training-Protect children from pesticide treated fields-Clarify vague WPS provisions & exceptions-Exempt certified crop advisors & aerial applicators-Express regulation in plain language

-Support-High benefit

-Support, but differences on how-Support

-Support

12

Discussion of New Issues

Questions Reactions/thoughts of subcommittee members Legal authority Agency responsibility Rule change necessary (or training, technical assistance)? Relative priority, risk, program need? Availability of information

13

New Issues/Scope Suggestions

Problem Proposed resolution Proposed by Details

WPS covers a limited scope of workers exposed to pesticides

WPS expansion SLAs

FJF

Large-scale research plotsLivestock agricultureLawn and landscape maintenance

Non-English speaking handlers may not understand label requirements

Adopt bilingual product labels or have translation available upon request

FJF

Handlers need more protection from OPs & carbamates

Adopt nationwide ChE monitoring program

FJF Employers pay medical monitoring costs. SLA investigate 20% ChEI cases

Handlers may be overexposed to pesticides. Dirty work clothes may result in take-home exposure

Shower and laundry facilities at all workplaces

FJF All workers should launder clothes at work

Handlers need shower access

WPS assessments identified gaps in the 11 safety training points

General training improvement issue

EPA

National Assessment

• Specific pesticide hazard information• How to protect the family from exposure• How to report suspected pesticide illnesses

14

Process Schedule

• Jun Second meeting of PPDC workgroup

• Jul First draft of regulatory languageReview draft economic analysis

• Jul - Dec Ongoing stakeholder involvement

• Nov EPA preliminary options selection meeting

• Dec Final EPA reviewRedraft proposed regulation

• Feb 07 Draft regulation to OMB

• Aug 07 Publish proposed regulation for public comment