From ???@??? Thu Apr 16 17:57:37 1998 Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 14:26:03 -0400 From: Tom Nally To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Unidentified subject! Content-Length: 440 Lines: 13 unsubscribe trn2@cce.cornell.edu May the road rise up to meet you, may the wind be always at your back, may the sunshine be warm upon your face, may the rain fall softly upon your fields and may God hold you in the palm of His hand. Tom Nally CCE Agriculture Program Leader Ontario County Seneca County 480 N. Main St. PO Box 748 Canandaigua, NY 14424 Waterloo, NY 13165 V 716-394-4110 ext. 30 315-539-9252 F 716-394-0377 315-539-2784 From ???@??? Thu Apr 16 17:57:37 1998 Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 11:04:48 -0500 From: Shelly Davis To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS enforcement Content-Length: 3958 Lines: 61 Because of the ForumĦs recent interest in enforcement issues, I would like to share a farmworker perspective. From our experiences and those of farmworkers and their advocates around the country, we find WPS compliance and enforcement to be very poor. To test out views on enforcement, Rebecca Schleifer (of Migrant Farmworker Justice Fund, Florida), and I (Shelley Davis, of Farmworker Justice Fund, Washington D.C. ) conducted a study of all 46 of Florida's investigations into complaints of farmworker pesticide poisoning which were completed between January 1992 and mid-May 1997. In Indifference to Safety: FloridaĦs Investigation Into Pesticide Poisoning of Farmworkers (March 1998), we found that FloridaĦs invstigative and enforcement effort was marred by glaring defects. For example: * The State repeatedly failed to find a causal connection between pesticide exposure and the injuries suffered by farmworkers. In only two instances did it conclude that pesticide exposure led to worker injury. * The State found regulatory violations in 31 instances, but issued only two fines. * The State failed to adequately investigate poisoning complaints even when a farmworker was seriously injured or killed, by systematically: failing to interview co-workers or other eyewitnesses out of the presence of supervisory personnel (with adequate translators); failing to obtain relevant medical records; routinely accepting uncorroborated employer claims of compliance; using checklists as a substitute for a thorough on-site inspection; and ignoring evidence of employer retaliation. * The State lacked adequate investigative protocols: it routinely failed to collect soil, plant, clothing and other physical samples that would have enabled it to verify exposures and identify the pesticide(s) used; it routinely failed to draw reasonable inferences from the information obtained; and it failed to make regulatory determinations based on objective, corroborated evidence. * The State failed to coordinate the investigative efforts of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) with those of other enforcement agencies, such as OSHA, or the Division of Workers= Compensation. It also failed to ensure that FDACS established effective communication with health providers who are required by state law to report pesticide exposure incidents. * The State failed to impose meaningful penalties when pesticide violations resulted in worker injury. Moreover, Florida went to great lengths to avoid the conclusion that pesticide exposure led to worker injury. For example: * In two incidents, FDACS noted both that unprotected workers had been placed in a field before the REI expired and that the workers subsequently received medical treatment. Nonetheless, it refused to find any connection between the exposure and the subsequent injuries. * In another incident, FDACS found that an employer unlawfully caused a pesticide to drift onto Aan area@ where farmworkers were working, but failed to find any relationship between exposure and subsequent worker injury. * In another case, the Department noted that a farmworker was accidentally sprayed with pesticides and that the company had failed to provide him with prompt transportation to a medical facility. However, it drew no conclusions concerning the relationship between the exposure and the worker's injury. By failing to adequately investigate complaints, issue citations for pesticide poisoning and impose meaningful penalties for serious WPS violations, the State has deprived farmworkers of adequate protection and wholly undermined its effort to deter future misconduct, as the repeat violator complaints in FDACS' files amply demonstrate. The complete report of Indifference to Safety is available from the Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc., 1111 19th Street N.W., Washington D.C. 20036, ph. 202-776-1757; fax 202-776-1792; email: fjf@nclr.org, for $15. From ???@??? Thu Apr 09 11:41:56 1998 Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 11:04:48 -0500 To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: Shelly Davis Subject: WPS enforcement Content-Length: 3959 Lines: 62 Because of the ForumĦs recent interest in enforcement issues, I would like to share a farmworker perspective. From our experiences and those of farmworkers and their advocates around the country, we find WPS compliance and enforcement to be very poor. To test out views on enforcement, Rebecca Schleifer (of Migrant Farmworker Justice Fund, Florida), and I (Shelley Davis, of Farmworker Justice Fund, Washington D.C. ) conducted a study of all 46 of Florida's investigations into complaints of farmworker pesticide poisoning which were completed between January 1992 and mid-May 1997. In Indifference to Safety: FloridaĦs Investigation Into Pesticide Poisoning of Farmworkers (March 1998), we found that FloridaĦs invstigative and enforcement effort was marred by glaring defects. For example: * The State repeatedly failed to find a causal connection between pesticide exposure and the injuries suffered by farmworkers. In only two instances did it conclude that pesticide exposure led to worker injury. * The State found regulatory violations in 31 instances, but issued only two fines. * The State failed to adequately investigate poisoning complaints even when a farmworker was seriously injured or killed, by systematically: failing to interview co-workers or other eyewitnesses out of the presence of supervisory personnel (with adequate translators); failing to obtain relevant medical records; routinely accepting uncorroborated employer claims of compliance; using checklists as a substitute for a thorough on-site inspection; and ignoring evidence of employer retaliation. * The State lacked adequate investigative protocols: it routinely failed to collect soil, plant, clothing and other physical samples that would have enabled it to verify exposures and identify the pesticide(s) used; it routinely failed to draw reasonable inferences from the information obtained; and it failed to make regulatory determinations based on objective, corroborated evidence. * The State failed to coordinate the investigative efforts of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) with those of other enforcement agencies, such as OSHA, or the Division of Workers= Compensation. It also failed to ensure that FDACS established effective communication with health providers who are required by state law to report pesticide exposure incidents. * The State failed to impose meaningful penalties when pesticide violations resulted in worker injury. Moreover, Florida went to great lengths to avoid the conclusion that pesticide exposure led to worker injury. For example: * In two incidents, FDACS noted both that unprotected workers had been placed in a field before the REI expired and that the workers subsequently received medical treatment. Nonetheless, it refused to find any connection between the exposure and the subsequent injuries. * In another incident, FDACS found that an employer unlawfully caused a pesticide to drift onto Aan area@ where farmworkers were working, but failed to find any relationship between exposure and subsequent worker injury. * In another case, the Department noted that a farmworker was accidentally sprayed with pesticides and that the company had failed to provide him with prompt transportation to a medical facility. However, it drew no conclusions concerning the relationship between the exposure and the worker's injury. By failing to adequately investigate complaints, issue citations for pesticide poisoning and impose meaningful penalties for serious WPS violations, the State has deprived farmworkers of adequate protection and wholly undermined its effort to deter future misconduct, as the repeat violator complaints in FDACS' files amply demonstrate. The complete report of Indifference to Safety is available from the Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc., 1111 19th Street N.W., Washington D.C. 20036, ph. 202-776-1757; fax 202-776-1792; email: fjf@nclr.org, for $15. From ???@??? Thu Apr 16 17:57:37 1998 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 14:32:50 -1000 From: Gerald Kinro To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: New NIOSH certification of respirators Content-Length: 245 Lines: 6 Niosh has changed its respirator certification procedures, and changes affect pre-filters and particulate filters. Has anyone seen labels that reflect this? ______________________________________ Gerald Kinro Hawaii Department of Agriculture From ???@??? Thu Apr 16 17:57:37 1998 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: Gerald Kinro Subject: New NIOSH certification of respirators Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 14:32:50 -1000 Content-Length: 245 Lines: 6 Niosh has changed its respirator certification procedures, and changes affect pre-filters and particulate filters. Has anyone seen labels that reflect this? ______________________________________ Gerald Kinro Hawaii Department of Agriculture From ???@??? Tue Apr 21 13:34:29 1998 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 10:43:36 -800 From: "Monterey County Ag Commissioner" To: Shelly Davis , wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: WPS enforcement Content-Length: 839 Lines: 18 Shelley, It is not uncommon for pesticide incident investigators to not make any connection between exposure and health effects. This is because the field investigators are not medical toxicologists. Their job is usually to determine if any violations of the law have occurred and gather medical information. In California, these investigative reports are then forwarded to medical toxicologists who make a determination as to the probability that the exposure is related to any observed illness or injury. I am not familiar with the process in Florida but I imagine it is similar. I think that 46 investigations over a five-year period is not a lot of pesticide related illness for a state like Florida. Are doctors in Florida required to report possible pesticide-related work injuries to the authorities? Bob Roach From ???@??? Fri Apr 17 12:07:57 1998 From: "Monterey County Ag Commissioner" To: Shelly Davis , wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 10:43:36 -800 Subject: Re: WPS enforcement Content-Length: 839 Lines: 18 Shelley, It is not uncommon for pesticide incident investigators to not make any connection between exposure and health effects. This is because the field investigators are not medical toxicologists. Their job is usually to determine if any violations of the law have occurred and gather medical information. In California, these investigative reports are then forwarded to medical toxicologists who make a determination as to the probability that the exposure is related to any observed illness or injury. I am not familiar with the process in Florida but I imagine it is similar. I think that 46 investigations over a five-year period is not a lot of pesticide related illness for a state like Florida. Are doctors in Florida required to report possible pesticide-related work injuries to the authorities? Bob Roach From ???@??? Tue Apr 21 13:34:29 1998 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 13:50:11 -0500 (EST) From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: New NIOSH certification of respirators Content-Length: 3241 Lines: 65 Gerald: Thanks for your question about the language changes for particulate filters. Let me provide some background for our Forum readers before I provide an answer to your question about products with new respirator language on the label. The NIOSH certification change will impact pesticide labels; the current pesticide labels references dust/mist filtering respirators (MSHA/NIOSH TC-21C) and organic vapor removing cartridge respirators with a prefilters approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH TC-23C). These are respirators certified under Part 11; the new particulate filters will be certified under NIOSH's Part 84 regulations. NIOSH upgraded the certification tests for particulate respirators in July 1995. As of July 10, 1998, respirator manufacturers will cease to manufacture Part 11 respirators. Sales of Part 11 respirators at distributors and retailers will not be impacted; respirator users can continue to use the Part 11 respirators until the supply is depleted. NIOSH is encouraging respirator users to switch to the Part 84 respirators as soon as possible. In preparation for the switchover from Part 11 to Part 84 respirators, the manufacturers have been making and selling Part 84 respirators for more than a year and have started phasing out their Part 11 production. During the last year, EPA has been working with the Industrial Safety Equipment Association and respirator manufacturers to address this change. The industry has indicated to EPA that they anticipate one to three years supply of Part 11 respirators may exist in the distributor/retail markets. The Agency is preparing a Federal Register notice to address the Part 11/Part 84 respirator switchover now; we anticipate the FR notice will be published at the end of this month. We also have a Pesticide Regulatory Notice that will modify pesticide labels and add Part 84 language; it is moving through the Agency signoff process. We also have prepared an "info-mapped" document for distribution to the Regions and States that discusses the language changes. This document will be made available shortly as well. OSHA Weekly will carry a notice about the EPA's forthcoming respirator language changes; we anticipate this will probably appear in next issue. And, finally, there are a couple of new pesticide registrations in progress (biological products) that will leave the Agency at the end of this month that will bear both Part 84 (new) and Part 11 (existing) respirator language on them. Call if you have questions. Judy Smith Worker Protection EPA/Washington DC 703-305-5621 ********************************************************************** Niosh has changed its respirator certification procedures, and changes affect pre-filters and particulate filters. Has anyone seen labels that reflect this? ______________________________________ Gerald Kinro Hawaii Department of Agriculture From ???@??? Fri Apr 17 12:34:06 1998 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 13:50:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: New NIOSH certification of respirators To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Content-Length: 3241 Lines: 65 Gerald: Thanks for your question about the language changes for particulate filters. Let me provide some background for our Forum readers before I provide an answer to your question about products with new respirator language on the label. The NIOSH certification change will impact pesticide labels; the current pesticide labels references dust/mist filtering respirators (MSHA/NIOSH TC-21C) and organic vapor removing cartridge respirators with a prefilters approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH TC-23C). These are respirators certified under Part 11; the new particulate filters will be certified under NIOSH's Part 84 regulations. NIOSH upgraded the certification tests for particulate respirators in July 1995. As of July 10, 1998, respirator manufacturers will cease to manufacture Part 11 respirators. Sales of Part 11 respirators at distributors and retailers will not be impacted; respirator users can continue to use the Part 11 respirators until the supply is depleted. NIOSH is encouraging respirator users to switch to the Part 84 respirators as soon as possible. In preparation for the switchover from Part 11 to Part 84 respirators, the manufacturers have been making and selling Part 84 respirators for more than a year and have started phasing out their Part 11 production. During the last year, EPA has been working with the Industrial Safety Equipment Association and respirator manufacturers to address this change. The industry has indicated to EPA that they anticipate one to three years supply of Part 11 respirators may exist in the distributor/retail markets. The Agency is preparing a Federal Register notice to address the Part 11/Part 84 respirator switchover now; we anticipate the FR notice will be published at the end of this month. We also have a Pesticide Regulatory Notice that will modify pesticide labels and add Part 84 language; it is moving through the Agency signoff process. We also have prepared an "info-mapped" document for distribution to the Regions and States that discusses the language changes. This document will be made available shortly as well. OSHA Weekly will carry a notice about the EPA's forthcoming respirator language changes; we anticipate this will probably appear in next issue. And, finally, there are a couple of new pesticide registrations in progress (biological products) that will leave the Agency at the end of this month that will bear both Part 84 (new) and Part 11 (existing) respirator language on them. Call if you have questions. Judy Smith Worker Protection EPA/Washington DC 703-305-5621 ********************************************************************** Niosh has changed its respirator certification procedures, and changes affect pre-filters and particulate filters. Has anyone seen labels that reflect this? ______________________________________ Gerald Kinro Hawaii Department of Agriculture From ???@??? Mon Apr 20 09:23:10 1998 Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:54:44 -0500 From: LAVARRE UHLKEN To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS enforcement -Reply Content-Length: 500 Lines: 8 when you talk about "Meaningful" penalties....what are you expecting?..States, many times can pursue higher monetary penalties than can EPA under our , somewhat weak Law (FIFRA)...the use of the word meaningful tends to make one think that an enforcer can jam a huge fine done a farmers throat and put him out of business. that practice is HIGHLY counter productive...let's protect, but not issue vendettas against people who make this nation work.....agriculture, agriculture and agriculture.... From ???@??? Tue Apr 21 13:34:29 1998 Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:54:44 -0500 From: LAVARRE UHLKEN To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS enforcement -Reply Content-Length: 500 Lines: 8 when you talk about "Meaningful" penalties....what are you expecting?..States, many times can pursue higher monetary penalties than can EPA under our , somewhat weak Law (FIFRA)...the use of the word meaningful tends to make one think that an enforcer can jam a huge fine done a farmers throat and put him out of business. that practice is HIGHLY counter productive...let's protect, but not issue vendettas against people who make this nation work.....agriculture, agriculture and agriculture.... From ???@??? Tue Apr 21 13:34:29 1998 Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:38:35 -0500 From: Shelly Davis To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: More on Enforcement Content-Length: 3909 Lines: 81 We wrote Indifference to Safety, not to be critical of any particular state, but because of our concern for the health and safety of the 2.5 million men, women and children who perform hand labor in agriculture for very little pay. When I go to forums with growers, I am most struck by the fact that they generally don't believe that pesticides are dangerous. At the time that the majority of pesticides in use first came on the market little was known about their adverse effects on human health and the environment. In the subsequent decades, however, much has been learned. We now know a lot more about the neurotoxic effects of organophosphates and the potential of scores of other chemicals to cause cancer, birth defects, sterility, etc. The consequence of this new knowledge is that work practices must change--and change is difficult, especially when it bears on the way a person makes a living. A first change was the Worker Protection Standard. Another, perhaps even more profound change, may be caused by the Food Quality Protection Act. In order to persuade growers that these provisions are not just something dreamed up by folks in Washington to give them a pain in the neck, the focus has to be on the human health hazards posed by these chemicals. I don't think that either state enforcement people or growers are bad people. But even good people make mistakes and can put the health of others at risk. We are not looking to put anyone out of business. We want an enforcement scheme that gets growers to take seriously the need to change practices to conform to safety requirement. I don't think that it is easy to enforce the WPS provisions effectively. In fact, during the WPS rulemaking we commented on many aspects of the Standard which could be improved to make enforcement easier. Our suggestions were not adopted. In writing our report we took seriously the need to come up with recommendations about how to make enforcement more effective. We hope you will read the report and engage in a constructive dialogue with us -- in this forum or elsewhere -- and raise the wealth of knowledge and experienced many of you have gained in carrying out the important task of enforcing this Standard. From ???@??? Tue Apr 21 13:34:29 1998 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:14:03 -0700 From: Phil Hull To: "wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU" Subject: RE: New NIOSH certification of respirators Message-ID: <01BD6D10.C73E5FE0@yakimauser021.televar.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Judy, Thank you for keeping us up to date on NIOSH's certification of respirators. These changes seem to have a larger impact on filter manufacturers than on users. Growers are purchasing filters based on the recommendation/advice of their suppliers and don't' seem to be overly concerned about the changes in color coding or TC numbers. I see a mix of both the old and new filter labels in the field. In your note you mentioned the OSHA Weekly. What is this publication? Is it available to the general public? Do you think it something that agricultural associations who deal with safety issues would find useful? Thank you. --------------------------------------- Phil Hull Washington Growers League -----Original Message----- From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV [SMTP:SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV] Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 11:50 AM To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: rudolph.kay@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV; SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Subject: Re: New NIOSH certification of respirators Gerald: Thanks for your question about the language changes for particulate filters. Let me provide some background for our Forum readers before I provide an answer to your question about products with new respirator language on the label. From ???@??? Mon Apr 20 11:03:09 1998 Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:38:35 -0500 To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: Shelly Davis Subject: More on Enforcement Content-Length: 2273 Lines: 45 We wrote Indifference to Safety, not to be critical of any particular state, but because of our concern for the health and safety of the 2.5 million men, women and children who perform hand labor in agriculture for very little pay. When I go to forums with growers, I am most struck by the fact that they generally don't believe that pesticides are dangerous. At the time that the majority of pesticides in use first came on the market little was known about their adverse effects on human health and the environment. In the subsequent decades, however, much has been learned. We now know a lot more about the neurotoxic effects of organophosphates and the potential of scores of other chemicals to cause cancer, birth defects, sterility, etc. The consequence of this new knowledge is that work practices must change--and change is difficult, especially when it bears on the way a person makes a living. A first change was the Worker Protection Standard. Another, perhaps even more profound change, may be caused by the Food Quality Protection Act. In order to persuade growers that these provisions are not just something dreamed up by folks in Washington to give them a pain in the neck, the focus has to be on the human health hazards posed by these chemicals. I don't think that either state enforcement people or growers are bad people. But even good people make mistakes and can put the health of others at risk. We are not looking to put anyone out of business. We want an enforcement scheme that gets growers to take seriously the need to change practices to conform to safety requirement. I don't think that it is easy to enforce the WPS provisions effectively. In fact, during the WPS rulemaking we commented on many aspects of the Standard which could be improved to make enforcement easier. Our suggestions were not adopted. In writing our report we took seriously the need to come up with recommendations about how to make enforcement more effective. We hope you will read the report and engage in a constructive dialogue with us -- in this forum or elsewhere -- and raise the wealth of knowledge and experienced many of you have gained in carrying out the important task of enforcing this Standard. From ???@??? Tue Apr 21 13:34:28 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from slist@localhost) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA05604; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01BD6D10.C73E5FE0@yakimauser021.televar.com> From: Phil Hull To: "wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU" Subject: RE: New NIOSH certification of respirators Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:14:03 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by are.Berkeley.EDU id KAA05154 Resent-Message-ID: <"jtc_aD.A.uQB.OhNP1"@are.Berkeley.EDU> Resent-From: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/205 X-Loop: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Precedence: list Resent-Sender: wps-forum-request@are.Berkeley.EDU X-UIDL: 987fcc40542c13c115f03bf5d70409fb Status: RO Content-Length: 1276 Lines: 27 Dear Judy, Thank you for keeping us up to date on NIOSH's certification of respirators. These changes seem to have a larger impact on filter manufacturers than on users. Growers are purchasing filters based on the recommendation/advice of their suppliers and don't' seem to be overly concerned about the changes in color coding or TC numbers. I see a mix of both the old and new filter labels in the field. In your note you mentioned the OSHA Weekly. What is this publication? Is it available to the general public? Do you think it something that agricultural associations who deal with safety issues would find useful? Thank you. --------------------------------------- Phil Hull Washington Growers League -----Original Message----- From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV [SMTP:SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV] Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 11:50 AM To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: rudolph.kay@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV; SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Subject: Re: New NIOSH certification of respirators Gerald: Thanks for your question about the language changes for particulate filters. Let me provide some background for our Forum readers before I provide an answer to your question about products with new respirator language on the label. From ???@??? Wed Apr 22 10:23:40 1998 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:12:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re[2]: New NIOSH certification of respirators To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Content-Length: 6290 Lines: 126 Phil: Thank you for your comments. The NIOSH certification changes potentially could have an enormous impact. Let's look at this switchover from an impact basis for regulators, pesticide users, registrants, and the marketplace. Regulatory impact The pesticide label is the law with respect to enforcement. Given a strict interpretation of 40 CFR 156.212, using a Part 84 respirator would not meet the Part 11 respirator label requirements. (This goes back to the "label is the law" stance.) This would put an applicator in a position to be cited for using the new Part 84 respirators. Clearly, this was an undesirable outcome; our regulations didn't factor in technological change at the time of promulgation. The Agency will address this fully in a forthcoming Federal Register Notice, as indicated in an earlier posting. When we modify the regulation, the Agency plans to build in additional flexibility for the next round of upgrades for the NIOSH respirator certification standards. Impact on labels and registrants The current pesticide labels have Part 11 statements, such as: dust/mist filtering respirator (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C), or an organic vapor-removing cartridge respirator with a prefilter approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-23C). The dust/mist filtering respirator will now be called a "filtering facepiece respirator". They are designated as N (no oil), R (oil resistant), or P (oilproof) and have an efficiency designation (95, 99, or 100%); Part 84's also have only a NIOSH approval. Organic vapor cartridge respirator designations also changed with the Part 84 certification change; they are now designated as "a NIOSH approved respirator with organic vapor (OV) cartridge or canister with any N, P, R or HE filter". [Note: the "N" type can not be used if the material being applied contains oil.] The OV cartridge color coding remains unchanged; OV cartridges have a black background with white lettering. Registrants will need to modify their labels and the Agency will provide guidance (specific language and timelines) to accomplish that via a Pesticide Registration Notice. The Agency intends to accomplish the respirator switchover smoothly with minimal disruption for pesticide users, registrants, retailers, and distributors. Across time, the new Part 84 language will be phased in on product labels. Impact on marketplace (distributors/retailers) The Agency has learned that pesticide products remain in the channels of trade for several use seasons; some products may be available for sale for four or more years. A risk-based argument would be difficult to propose where the Agency might require registrants to locate, and sticker or relabel all products with respirator requirements to reflect Part 84 language. If Part 11 respirators provide adequate protection, and Part 84 respirators offer equivalent or better respiratory protection for pesticide users, then it is reasonable to develop a phase-in process that will allow the label/respirator switchover to take place smoothly for all impacted stakeholders. Pesticide users in some geographic areas may experience shortages of Part 11 respirators during this or the next few years; the respirator industry was not able to provide precise estimates of their existing inventories. Again, the Agency considered this, factored in the duration that pesticide products may remain in the marketplace before being sold, and developed a process that will meet the needs of all those impacted by the Part 11 to Part 84 changes. OSHA Week OSHA Week is a summary document (10-16 pages/issue with weekly distribution) of meetings, regulatory actions or decisions, news briefs, and accident accounts that may impact or be of significant interest to OSHA-regulated entities. It's available by subscription and is put together by Stevens Publishing of Dallas Tx. For information about the OSHA Week publication, you can call 972-687-6745 or email: rjensen@cmpu.net Judy Smith EPA/Worker Protection 703-305-5621 Dear Judy, Thank you for keeping us up to date on NIOSH's certification of respirators. These changes seem to have a larger impact on filter manufacturers than on users. Growers are purchasing filters based on the recommendation/advice of their suppliers and don't' seem to be overly concerned about the changes in color coding or TC numbers. I see a mix of both the old and new filter labels in the field. In your note you mentioned the OSHA Weekly. What is this publication? Is it available to the general public? Do you think it something that agricultural associations who deal with safety issues would find useful? Thank you. --------------------------------------- Phil Hull Washington Growers League -----Original Message----- From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV [SMTP:SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV] Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 11:50 AM To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: rudolph.kay@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV; SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Subject: Re: New NIOSH certification of respirators Gerald: Thanks for your question about the language changes for particulate filters. Let me provide some background for our Forum readers before I provide an answer to your question about products with new respirator language on the label. From ???@??? Wed Apr 22 10:23:41 1998 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:07:50 -0700 From: Paul Andre To: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Subject: Re: New NIOSH certification of respirators Content-Length: 802 Lines: 21 Judy, Thanks for the additional info. I would like to know if there is really a big difference between the sect 11 and 84 respirators? In other words while there may be a technical violation for using the "wrong" designation respirator, what about the safety-to-the-user aspect? Also, what if someone is using an older label but can only get the new respirators? Are the new respirators considered safer, and therefore useable with older labels? We often see older labels, especially in smaller operations, that hang around for years. -- Key ya later, Paul Paul Andre Pesticide Program Missouri Dept. of Agriculture P.O. Box 630 - 1616 Missouri Blvd. Jefferson City, MO 65102 573-751-9198 FAX 0005 www.state.mo.us/mda From ???@??? Wed Apr 22 10:23:42 1998 From: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:04:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re[2]: New NIOSH certification of respirators To: SMITH.JUDY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV, pandre@mail.state.mo.us Content-Length: 2023 Lines: 56 Judy, Thanks for the additional info. I would like to know if there is really a big difference between the sect 11 and 84 respirators? The differences are the R and P Part 84's have filtering materials that are more resistive to oils in terms of maintaining electrostatic charges. Also Part 84's have a better collection efficiency in the 0.3 micron range (this is the particle size that is most penetrating in terms of respirator filters). In other words while there may be a technical violation for using the "wrong" designation respirator, what about the safety-to-the-user aspect? As you know, EPA did things a bit different than OSHA with respect to respirator protection. In the 4 to 10 micron range, both Part 11 and Part 84's do a great job; the 84's do better collection than the 11's with the smaller particulates (spores, silica, etc.) and oil-containing aerosols. Also, what if someone is using an older label but can only get the new respirators? No problem there. The forthcoming FR notice will address this issue. We're not going to cite someone for using a better (and perhaps the only) respirator. Are the new respirators considered safer, and therefore useable with older labels? We often see older labels, especially in smaller operations, that hang around for years. "Safer" is not the term I would use to compare part 11's and 84's; the 84's assure that oils will not degrade filter efficiency. Again, the Federal Register document and supporting Pesticide Registration Notice will address your concerns about timing and duration of use. Judy Smith EPA Paul Andre Pesticide Program Missouri Dept. of Agriculture P.O. Box 630 - 1616 Missouri Blvd. Jefferson City, MO 65102 573-751-9198 FAX 0005 www.state.mo.us/mda From ???@??? Mon Apr 06 12:14:19 1998 From: Anne Macmillan To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS PPE Requirements Date: Mon Apr 6 14:44:06 1998 Content-Length: 182 Lines: 5 What is the most up-to-date information on PPE Requirements for Pesticide Handlers and Early Entry Workers based on End Use Product Toxicity. Annie Macmillan Vermont Dept. of Ag. From ???@??? Tue Apr 07 17:07:53 1998 From: Anne Macmillan To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS PPE Requirements Date: Tue Apr 7 09:01:18 1998 Content-Length: 98 Lines: 4 Found my answer. EPA WPS Product Safety Data pocket guide. Annie Macmillan Vermont Dept. of Ag.